This is to certify that the dissertation entitled The Effects of Family Stress on Child Aggression During Infancy and Early Childhood presented by Urminda Sue Firlan-Whitsett has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor of Philosophy degree in Psychology Major pylfe/ssm/ Y Qy/M 954V Date /2,/§/°o MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0. 12771 '11 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE AUG 1 3 2003 EB 27 2024 FEB 1 ,1 2007 11m W9.“ THE EFFECTS OF FAMILY STRESS ON CHILD AGGRESSION DURING INFANCY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD BY Urminda Sue Firlan—Whitsett A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 2000 P“ A.“ a V . g. “he .s. C. .( C s «9 a. :- E t. ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF FAMILY STRESS ON CHILD AGGRESSION DURING INFANCY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD BY Urminda Sue Firlan-Whitsett The present study used structural equation modeling to investigate the relationship between family stress and child aggression. Precursors of aggressive behavior (child temperament, parent—child social interaction, parent disciplinary practices, family cohesion, and family demographics) were examined as potential mediators of the relationship between family stress and child aggression. Data from the Detroit Skillman Parenting Education Program Evaluation (Stoffelmayr, Reischl, Lounsbury, & Firlan-Whitsett, 1998) were used to address these issues. Subjects included 260 families. Respondents were predominantly Black women with a mean age of 26.5 years. The children's ages ranged from 1-1/2 years to 4—1/2 years with a mean age of 31 months. There were comparable numbers of boys and girls. Results of structural equation modeling indicated that family stress indirectly affected child aggressive behaviors. Specifically, increased levels of family stress resulted in decreased use of positive parenting practices. Less positive parenting practices predicted less adaptive child temperament. In «- ‘- ‘I- . S E. a r. ~. .. ..c F. .... .a >‘ F. . w... .... c. 2. ,3 A. ... T. t t .2 A. I ._.‘ l t H S I. t C ... :. l. e .. E D. .3 T. . i . .c . . 5 I h. l. I .. T. E . .d E c . n: . . . c . .. . a E C 5 ‘ . . ‘ szw c ‘ ~ ... 1. ... .. c .c . . 5 a. S .. . .. . a . . . . . G. I. v. e . . .u. “3 n.« >« ‘9? A. Q» any». . :. e I . E ..n a. C: _.. 5 C t : e is a. . . .2 . . ~ 3 .3 .3 . . 2 . . 4 a L .. S S .e S 2. ~ .. . . ... ”a it . L .... e a. » s a» at . s .. ~ .fi.H are .3. . 2. r C . . .u .2 t C n... he a .a. .. a. g... as“. .9.— turn, less adaptive child temperament predicted higher levels of aggressive behavior. Overall the results of model 1, the best fitting original model, suggested that family stress, poor parent disciplinary practices, and difficult child temperament create a strong trajectory toward childhood aggression as early as 1-1/2 years of age. Although the Chi-Square [x2(df = 97, g 260) = 129.50, B = .015] was significant, the GFI (.94) and the CFI (.84) were large and the RMSEA (.04) was small. Additionally, the data fit the rule of thumb that an acceptable fit exists if two times the degrees of freedom exceeds the xzhdf = 97 x 2 = 194; 194 > 129.50]. Post hoc analyses were conducted in an attempt to understand why family cohesion did not mediate the relationship between family stress and child aggression in the original models. Alternate model 8 preserved all findings from the original models and further demonstrated that family cohesion mediates the deleterious effects of family stress on child behavior through its impact on parent disciplinary practices and also revealed a bi-directional relationship between parent disciplinary practices and child temperament. Alternate model 8 provided the most insight toward understanding the impact of family stress on child aggression. These findings support the class of system models in human development that advance the notion that meaningful relationships can best be uncovered through the inclusion of multi-level variables and reciprocal processes. Copyright by URMINDA SUE FIRLAN—WHITSETT 2000 .— . - a I- \ ~ ' -hA~"V"" a AOQOI'V“.. ‘ - .A. >' .... T. Z L» ~.. A: .. c. 0‘ V. ‘. a. . . r. :c a. ... .».. i . . .c T. .t A. we 3‘ .u A: .. .c .3 I. 5 Ce :— ... r at a. .. cc v. s: ”0 um 55 I. .c 3. a. I. ;. . a v. .rw . s . .. ... u“ ... Q. ..— .s n“ 3V U“ r\- «- A» a: Q \- ‘ ~ A: :4 DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the youngest and oldest members of my family, who have both touched my life in a way that can not be captured by words. My Auntie Clio turned 100 years old, eleven days before my defense. Although she was born in 1900, she never settled for the notion of a "woman's place." She earned a reputation as being brash and abrasive as she pioneered into territories where women were not allowed. She has positively impacted the lives of others through her intellectual curiosity, strength of character, positive attitude, respect of the unknown, and philosophical nature. The intellect and insight she has shared with me over the years is a gift I will treasure forever. My 2-1/2 year old son, Bryce, has given me a sense of balance in life. I have learned to love and cherish each minute as opposed to being driven by result oriented anxiety. Having a child and completing this dissertation are the two most difficult and rewarding ventures I have experienced. My anecdotal conclusions are that giving natural childbirth with no anesthesia was much easier than doing this dissertation and although it brings me great joy to become Dr. Firlan-Whitsett, it pales in comparison to the elation I feel every day that I spend with my son. V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this dissertation is the result of incredible contribution on the part of many others in my life. I would first like to thank the Detroit Skillman Foundation, the Health Department Study Project Staff, and all of the families who participated in the study. In addition, each member of my committee gave of themselves to make my dissertation a valuable work and for that I am grateful to Hiram Fitzgerald, Alexander von Eye, Joel Nigg, and Bob Caldwell. Specifically, I would like to thank Dr. von Eye for lending his statistical expertise, sense of humor, and matter of fact style; Dr. Nigg for leads on the latest literature and his supportive defense demeanor; and Dr. Caldwell for thoughtful feedback on model construction at the outset of the process. I would like to provide special acknowledgement to my chair, Dr. Hiram Fitzgerald, for his support and guidance not only on this dissertation but throughout my graduate training. He continually set the bar higher while secretly working in the backdrop to ensure success. I am eternally grateful to my parents. Each of them has given a special gift that has shaped and molded the person I am today. My mother, Pam Nelson, has taught me self sacrifice and the ability to creatively problem solve given limited resources. My step—father, Larry Nelson, has provided an example of sturdy, level-headed objectivity that is essential in the social sciences. My father, Jim Firlan, has given me the gift of strong VI .a a . . . .H In . -H— . V‘- v. . m. Q . D. . . . . _ . . . . w. s . . . . «u a; .. a o . .. .3 . . . ... . .‘ .._ ... r 3 . . . .~. .—. .AJ I. .uv . ¢ >.. .da \ ‘ .u. . .. c . A _. ‘ s . p“ .. _ .. _u . E. .: .. .3 .. 1 5 ac. .. .. .. . . .. .. _ o. _: . ‘J t. v. . .. . L. L. _: .. .C C \ L. .. . v_. .3 . . . . ~. . .3 I. . . Q. . n 2. .. . . .. .. . . .2 c . , . u . ‘ .H r . r.. L. L. ..-. Q. .fi . v. .. .3 Na .: .IH . « r” .5 .. .7 .7 . w. . . a. a. .. .... . .. .2 t. L. . rt? 2. . . .. r. .. ... —. r. r. .. .. p.. .6 ,.. .2 s. v. a» 'u 2‘ s. «a .. . . 1.. L. e . r.. L. . . I... .‘ m . 2 .3 .N. I . .. —.. . . s . u.. ..n . .: . . . nu . . t. 2. ”h v . L. ... C . . v. .uee. ~ .. R . .: ... «a .. .. .u... N3 ; \ x . r? .«a .. .. .. L. .. . 3 .. u? e. 0.. ... s. r. . . . — .x. r . r. a . . t I . ~ ~ \ z. . . v s. . C . . . e . .A. . . . N: .u u .. .V . . ». L .. . . ,»~ . t. . . . . p. . .: -~ . .p.. n v. a .. \“C. work ethic and the confidence to "grab the bull by the horns" when faced with any challenge. My step-mother, Elaine Firlan, has taught me to love without jeopardizing who I am as a person. A very special professor, Dr. Carl Taylor, saw this unique set of skills and chose to mentor me throughout my undergraduate and graduate training. It was the intriguing nature of his thought process that inspired me to want to tackle social problems and it was his belief in me that gave me the determination to accept the challenges of a Ph.D. program. The intellectual connection and friendship we have developed is one of the most meaningful rewards I have gained throughout this journey. In the beginning of my graduate training, Dr. Richard Lerner and Dr. Jacqueline Lerner provided opportunities and support above and beyond the call of duty. I will never forget what these individuals have done for me. Three fellow doctoral students have played a special role in my life as I have navigated this tricky terrain. I would like to acknowledge Rosalind Johnson for her comradery, Lucy Seabrook for always providing a reality check and David Lounsbury for our motivational and strategizing sessions. My friend, Scott Thomas, served as a technical consultant throughout my graduate training and that assistance was invaluable. I would also like to thank Bob Manard for the inspirational role he played while I was running that final lap. Although my closest friends, Dawne Ross, Christine Witters, Nancy Firlan, Whitney Johnson, and Nikki Stubbert, played no particular role in this dissertation, their VII .D- ‘u‘ (I) (1) pic, 0' . .4-..-~ .r . -... _. . a .- 5—- "~ _..1 -... . . a no .—. .au- -- . . . --— ‘ :1 0 an. _. "“ ‘- A . -.,‘ _ . -. "_ . " -.. fl -..- ‘ Q-v‘:l ~-p._ -‘ 1'"“--. . w.- .’ .4". h ‘ ....~ ‘I u '- i -.v . g 'l" I _- ~ ’._‘ “~ "\ .. "a,_ a .4 -_ ~- . in -II. -.‘_ 'I_' . -'\ r .- ‘J .- ~x r-‘ “s b. 9 § ‘. 'I c \ . .... c .... Q“ friendship and support have been instrumental to me as a person. We have each taken somewhat different paths, but the bonds that we have established will continue to play a valuable role in my life. I am also indebted to my Aunt Anna and my brothers, Jim, Bob, and Chad. Each of these individuals has had a profound impact on who I am and has stood by me throughout life. Without their love, support, childhood cruelty, name calling, and antagonizing I may not have been thick skinned enough to make it through this program. My husband, Brian Whitsett, is the calm in the storm for me. He has an endless capacity to provide loving support to me as I become overwhelmed and consumed with a variety of ventures. His trust and belief in me, inspire me to achieve more each day. At this point, I am eagerly looking forward to the next chapter in our life! VIII — n .‘.h. \vu A ...~-"' a Mr v- ..-..> .- 'I.‘~ U . a. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................... XIII LIST OF FIGURES ......................................... XIV Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................. 1 Chapter 2 ................................................. 5 Literature Review ......................................... 5 Developmental Systems Theory ............................. 5 Factors Associated with Aggression ....................... 7 Family Stress is Linked to Child Aggression ............. 11 Family Stress is Linked to Family Cohesion .............. 13 Family Cohesion is Linked to Child Aggression ........... 14 Parent Disciplinary Practices are Linked to Child Aggression and to Child Adaptive Behavior ............... 17 Parent/Child Social Interaction Style is Linked to Child Aggression and to Child Adaptive Behavior ............... 20 Child Age is Linked to Child Aggression ................. 35 Child Sex is Linked to Child Aggression ................. 37 Child Temperament is Linked to Child Aggression ......... 39 Child Temperament is Linked to Parent/Child Interaction Style and Parent Disciplinary Practices ................. 42 Stability of Aggression ................................. 45 Aggression as a Predictor of Academic Failure ........... 47 Aggression as a Predictor of Delinquency and Other Negative Outcomes ....................................... 49 Hypotheses .............................................. 50 IX .. .~ . .. Z ... . . T a. ._ ... . . . L. ‘ .4‘ -n ..- . h_q A . vi. NV. ”'4 As» *.s “an “.5 .NH . r. .. .. .3 3.. .. .. .. .. .2. .c e. .I. n. a. . .. .. .. . .... ... ... .... ... n. ... I ... 3 .J c. .. . .. ~.. ~... 7. a. e .d E. . . . w w . . .. . ._. . L ~ . . . ..m ... .n. v . nn~. v.. ..~. A c ._ ~¢ . .. .. ».. 2. a. a... as. u... huh .3 s “an a. a. r. .. . c . . ... . . z. .9; . . ~ 4 my .5 ~A‘ nus r~ a» Cw an. ..a V. r. .5 C. . . Chapter 3 Methods .................................................. 53 Subjects ................................................ 53 Procedure ............................................... 62 Instruments ............................................. 66 Family Stress ......................................... 66 Difficult Life Circumstances (DLC) ................... 67 The COPE Inventory (COPE) ............................ 68 Family Map (FM) ...................................... 71 Demographics (D) ..................................... 72 Family Cohesion ....................................... 72 Family Environment Scale (FES) ...................... 72 Family Hardiness Index (FHI) ......................... 74 Family Routines Inventory (FRI) ..................... 77 Parent-Child Social Interaction ....................... 79 Parent Infant Social Interaction Code (PISIC) ........ 79 Parental Discipline ................................... 82 Parenting Dimensions Inventory (PDI) ................. 82 Child Rearing Practices Report (CRPR) ................ 85 Child Temperament ..................................... 86 The Colorado Childhood Temperament Inventory (CCTI)..87 Child Aggression ...................................... 89 The Child Behavior Checklist/2-3 (CBCL/2-3) .......... 89 Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS) ............. 91 X an .. s. .2 :. up. .. v. .3 .. .. .2 .3 a. a . .. . .3 & ~ 2. v. .G a: The Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory (ASBI) ........ 93 Chapter 4 Results .................................................. 96 Collapsing Data ......................................... 96 Data Estimation ......................................... 97 Descriptive Analysis .................................... 97 Structural Equation Modeling ........................... 102 Original Models ...................................... 103 Alternate Models ..................................... 108 Chapter 5 Discussion .............................................. 124 Summary and Discussion of Results ............ V .......... 125 Family Stress ........................................ 125 Family Cohesion ...................................... 125 Parental Disciplinary Practices ...................... 127 Parent—Child Social Interaction ...................... 128 Sex Differences ...................................... 129 Child Temperament .................................... 131 Bi—directional Relationship Between Child Temperament and Parent Disciplinary Practices .................... 133 Strengths and Limitations of the Study ................. 135 Limitations of the Study ............................. 135 Strengths of the Study ............................... 137 Suggestions for Future Research ........................ 138 Conclusions ............................................ 140 XI .. ....H .. .. .3 .. . . .t.. .t .._ r. :. v. .w. A. .3 a. «x» APPENDIX A Human Subjects Approval Letter .......................... 145 APPENDIX B Correlation Matrix of Scaled Scores ..................... 147 APPENDIX C Scaled Score Item Descriptives .......................... 163 APPENDIX D Covariance Matrix ....................................... 196 APPENDIX E Summary of Structural Equation Modeling Output .......... 199 REFERENCES .............................................. 229 X“ i-i . N ..\ \ rxk . . \ . . . I n I I I I I 0 o . - . . . . o . . . . . a L a... lu- ..,~ .Fv ~: Ana . b .1. IN. use ’C n .l- _i.. u c a . n ¢ ‘. c o‘ a A v s u s A: .p. .u. A». .w» a. a» C. a.» a. 2» G» a.» e Q» Q» Q» E» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r. r» .r~ r~ p~ .nu .u~ a. p~ p~ r. h~ .h~ .n~ hy .u~ u» »~ .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 - o . . u . - o c n c o o . o . s g n h . A h a c . § a n a fi 4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Respondent Demographic Profile ................. 56 Table 2. Family Demographic Profile. .................... 60 Table 3. Child Demographic Profile. ..................... 62 Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations of Scaled Scores .98 Table 5. Correlation Matrix of Scaled Scores. .......... 147 Table 6. Scaled Score Item Descriptives ................ 163 Table 7. Covariance Matrix of Scaled Scores. ........... 196 Table 8. Summary of Amos Output Model 1. ............... 200 Table 9. Summary of Amos Output Model 2. ............... 202 Table 10. Summary of Amos Output Model 3. .............. 205 Table 11. Summary of Amos Output Alternate Model 1. ....207 Table 12. Summary of Amos Output Alternate Model 2. ....210 Table 13. Summary of Amos Output Alternate Model 3. ....212 Table 14. Summary of Amos Output Alternate Model 4. ....215 Table 15. Summary of Amos Output Alternate Model 5. ....217 Table 16. Summary of Amos Output Alternate Model 6. ....220 Table 17. Summary of Amos Output Alternate Model 7. ....222 Table 18. Summary of Amos Output Alternate Model 8. ....225 XIII as. L .1 a. a. r. v. H. . ... Z. .. .. .p. .u. ow. :. »P. a. a. a. r. v. V‘ ... u. . ‘ w: -. ~a. .. .. .. —.. —.. —-. V.‘ Nu. A \ ~ § “ a. E I I w. u. 3. 3. .. ..‘ ‘.. \h. S T. . Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF FIGURES Conceptual Path Model of Family Stress to Child Outcomes as Mediated by Family Cohesion ....... 2 Conceptual Path Model of Family Stress to Child Outcomes as Moderated by Family Cohesion ...... 4 Expected Valence for Path Model of Family Stress to Child Outcomes as Mediated by Family Cohesion ..................................... 51 Expected Valences for Path Model of Family Stress to Child Outcomes as Moderated by Family Cohesion ..................................... 52 Measurement Model for Path Variables ......... 95 Standardized Path Coefficients of Model l...104 Standardized Path Coefficients of Model 2...lO6 Standardized Path Coefficients of Model 3...107 Standardized Path Coefficients of Alternate Model 1 ..................................... 110 Standardized Path Coefficients of Alternate Model 2 ..................................... 112 Standardized Path Coefficients of Alternate Model 3 ..................................... 113 Standardized Path Coefficients of Alternate Model 4 ..................................... 115 Standardized Path Coefficients of Alternate Model 7 ..................................... 119 Standardized Path Coefficients of Alternate Model 8 ..................................... 122 XIV .3 .u v. e. .v .. .. T a. .3 .au .pu .. L. a. . s: .3 w. .. ¢. 0 ‘ ~ A n. w .3 C. ‘- - - ‘...- g ' o -s 2 3 ’ .. .v I 3 C E E .7. ... I .2 E C. .. ”A .. .c 2 .7. ..... .. .. .I I: .u. a¢~ .3 C s r :— S S E .t . .. .. . . .T. a. my. sv- .: Q. I l 2. .. . C . . 5... s ‘ Q. C. 2 F. bk. Q. s s A» :h w . . .3. .. . ~\ 4‘ \ \ bx .- Chapter 1 Introduction This study was an attempt to construct a developmental model that would identify the probability of aggressive behavior given a particular set of individual, family, and social conditions. According to Garmezy (1985), harmonious family interaction is likely to serve as a protective factor against negative outcomes in the face of stress. However, a disharmonious family, alone, is not sufficient to predict aggressive behavior or any other negative - childhood outcome (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984; Werner & Smith, 1982). Therefore, in the examination of the relationship between family stress and child aggression, it was necessary to consider additional variables that potentially lead to the development of aggressive behaviors such as, child temperament, parent-child social interaction, parent disciplinary practices, family cohesion, and family demographics. Construction of a path model utilizing multilevel variables may provide a clearer understanding of the relationship between family functioning and child aggression. Two path models were tested. The first path model articulates the relationship between family stress and A’ v.‘..—5 r. .7 t. .t a . child aggression as mediated by family cohesion (see Figure 1). This model asserts that family stress predicts family cohesion, parent disciplinary practices and parent/child social interaction style. The latter two variables are hypothesized to have a direct effect on child aggression and indirect effects through their impact on child temperament. Parent-Child Social Interaction Family Cohesion Family Stress Child Temperament Parental Discipline Figure 1. Conceptual Path Model of Family Stress to Child Outcomes as Mediated by Family Cohesion. The second path model articulates the relationship between family stress and child aggression as moderated by family cohesion (see Figure 2). In other words, for families low 2 . A..- .u- c ___‘ ... v- V-- w ulna ~~~p .- .awdopd-h" a a App-Ac. a—\ vv-tvufiynn an, no. v. ' ‘ It) In . “ rte .-.~~ ~‘fi lav' 4 A . (I) (D ) in stress the effect of family cohesion should be negligible. However, for highly stressed families, family cohesion should play a crucial role in the prediction of child aggression. The second path model varies only with respect to the role of family cohesion; all other relationships are identical to those discussed for the first model. In summary, the purpose of this study was to create a structural equation model to explain the nature of the relationship between family stress and child aggression. The aggression literature indicates that an aggregation of risk factors leads to greater predictability of aggressive behavior. Because combinations of variables play a role in differentiating aggressive behavior, precursors of aggressive behavior (child temperament, parent-child social interaction, parent disciplinary practices, family cohesion, and family demographics) were examined as potential mediators of the relationship between family stress and child aggression. I.’ 1‘) Family Cohesion Parent-Child Social Interaction Family Child Stress Aggression Child Temperament Parental Discipline Figure 2. Conceptual Path Model of Family Stress to Child Outcomes as Moderated by Family Cohesion. Chapter 2 Literature Review Developmental Systems Theory provides the conceptual framework for the current study and provides conceptual support for the variety of variables included in the models. The first section of the literature review provides a summary of developmental systems theory. Next a general overview of factors related to aggression is examined to provide an introduction to and a general description of the variables as they relate to aggressive behavior. Following this general overview is a detailed literature review of the specific variables under study and how they relate to aggressive behavior in young children. This section details explicit support for the relationships in the models. Finally, the literature review discusses negative outcomes associated with early aggressive behavior. This section was designed to provide a description of the scope of the problem. Developmental Systems Theory According to stage theorists, the period of infancy and early childhood involves a series of developmental tasks that are accomplished through a combination of maturation and experience (Erikson, 1963; Piaget, 1969; Piaget, 1970). The developing child is confronted with the task of negotiating and integrating the changes that occur at a multitude of levels involving sensory and perceptual, physical and motor, cognitive, and language systems. Other changes occur outside the individual, more specifically within the individual’s mesosystems (Wachs, 1992). According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), the mesosystem includes the interaction of various settings within which the individual interacts and which influence the developing organism. Changes at this level involve attachment relationships, social interactions, peer relations and play, and intraorganismic aspects of ego development (Ainsworth, 1973; Erikson, 1963; Piaget, 1969, 1970; Sroufe, 1979). According to the theoretical framework of Developmental Systems Theory (DST), the child’s life and its processes are dynamic. That is, changes occur across time and developmental outcomes are the result of continual shaping and molding of the multitude of interactions occurring in the life of the individual (Ford & Lerner, 1992). Additionally, interactive or reciprocal relationships exist between the individual and the context. Therefore, not only does the environment affect the individual but the individual affects the environment (Gottlieb, 1991; Schneirla, 1959). For instance, a child’s negative reaction 3. .. C. Al. O.- r. .— r. A: .3 .. ... C. _. a: r». We a. .. w. .m .. n. .h C a. A- 7;: 4-- »~-‘ 1.. a» a. E s. ‘“ § -u-tv: S .C to some characteristic of a parent may cause the parent to alter or change that characteristic until it produces a more positive reaction in the child. In this case, the child's feedback actually changes the parent’s behavior, thereby effectively changing the environment. This bi- directional or circular process leads to the child affecting the context as well as the context affecting the child; in other words, the child is an active participant in shaping his or her environment and is simultaneously impacted by it. Furthermore, these interactions occur within and between several networks of the individual’s life. Each individual is surrounded by and embedded in a variety of other networks (family, peers, educational system, church and other legal institutions, etc.). Interactions within a specific network impact future interactions within that network as well as those that occur in other networks (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Therefore, successful negotiation of the tasks of infancy and early childhood must include an integration of the changes occurring at each level and the influence of each level on any other. Factors Associated with Aggression Although several studies have examined aggressive behavior in children, adolescents, and adults, studying .2 . t. a. a: . I. a .C A .2 .: 2. wt 7.. .3 L. Q. Av.--“ ~u-v~. .2 m. A. 3. z. . : ~< S .. S .. . E .. .. 2. .Q 2. .. .2 .Q a. A... aggression during the developmental tasks of early childhood may lend further insight toward understanding aggressive behavior. Transitional periods of development impose stressors that may place the individual at greater risk for negative outcomes. Conduct disorders and difficulty with self-regulation are examples of negative outcomes during childhood that may lead to aggressive behavior. The infant who is unable to successfully negotiate self-regulation of emotional state may be more likely in early childhood to participate in inappropriate acting out towards adults and peers. Furthermore, the transition into early childhood may exacerbate problematic behaviors of infancy, including lack of self—regulation. For instance, an infant who is unable to self-sooth may become a tantrum prone toddler, and later develop into an aggressive child, and still later a delinquent adolescent, and ultimately a criminal or violent adult due to a natural progression in severity of aggressive acts (Coie & Dodge, 1998; Farrington, 1978; Huesmann et al., 1984; Richman, Stevenson, & Graham, 1982). Several studies have found that contextual variables are associated with aggressive and other anti-social behaviors in childhood. Some factors found to be associated with aggressive behavior are family demographics such as n- r‘v- hob... as». dual .dv‘, v .. ‘:.. ’ ~a...-- . . I fly... 7. U u Aa- UVV‘ h (I) *1 AC low socioeconomic status; low parental occupational status; family structure; large family size; and maternal age at birth of the first child (Farrington, 1992; Rosenbaum, 1989; Wells & Rankin, 1991). Also commonly associated with aggressive and antisocial child behavior are the adaptability, cohesion, and method of communication in the family. Specific findings are that erratic, harsh, physical or inconsistent punishment; poor supervision; parental rejection, indifference, or hostility; parental criminality; alcohol abuse; parental discord; and insecure parent-child attachments are all related to childhood and adolescent aggression (Eron, Huesmann, & Zelli, 1991; Kazdin, 1987a; Loeber, 1988; McCord, 1990; Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank, 1991; Wisdom, 1989). In addition to the family characteristics discussed, the literature indicates that individual differences may play a role in attenuating or accentuating the negative impact of family discord. Within the aggression literature, gender, temperament, self—concept, interpersonal skills, motor development, and cognitive problem solving have each been found to be associated with level of aggression in individuals (Alexander, 1973; Berkowitz, 1978; Burdett & Jensen, 1983; Carlson, Lahey, & Neeper, 1984; Freedman, Rosenthal, Donahoe, Schalndt, & McFall, 1978; Kendall & Braswell, 1985; Kinard, 1980; Reynolds, 1980). As has been discussed above, familial characteristics as well as child characteristics are shown to be weakly predictive of aggressive behavior. However, it seems that severe antisocial and aggressive behavior are found only when a number of these factors concomitantly occur (Eron, 1982). Nonetheless, much of current research continues to examine relatively few variables at a time. The remainder of the literature review details the current status of the field with respect to the factors that have been found to be associated with aggression in children. It is important to point out that literature examining hyperactivity, attention deficit disorder, noncompliance, child behavior problems, and discipline problems may be included in the literature review, as these variables are highly intertwined and are difficult to disentangle in early childhood. In fact, there is debate on whether these variables represent distinctly different behavioral tendencies or if they are different constructs that represent the same behavioral tendency (Campbell & Werry, 1986; Rutter, 1983). 10 ~--AFAO'- a- ‘ . iv...,‘,". .1 no..- (I) ‘.~ in D 1 I“ (l' ‘(J (D (b (I) K r (1' 5“ aw”. ~-~.-_- '1" '1 () a‘ . ~ 9 ‘ - “- ”a ‘Nu ‘ y ‘ Q .A . \'~‘ . . z" , Family Stress is Linked to Child Aggression Differential reaction to the same stressor has been demonstrated as evidence that the stressor alone does not affect the individual. Rather, it is the perception of the stimuli that determines the consequences of the stressor for any given individual (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Though an individual's perception or interpretation of the stimuli dictates the potency of the stressor, to some extent, there is a shared consensus regarding the types of events that are categorized as stressful (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Life event stressors include marriage/divorce, death of a loved one, birth of a child, and other normative transitions; daily hassle stressors include stubbing one's toe, running late for an appointment, missing a flight, and a whole host of other inconveniences. An aggregation of life events and or daily hassle stressors for a given family is likely to result in negative outcomes for the adults as well as the children in the family. Problem behavior children are more likely to live in chronically stressful homes. Researchers have found that ongoing family stress is highly predictive of increased incidence and maintenance of problem behaviors in children (Campbell & Ewing, 1990; Richman et al., 1982; Rutter, 1987; Werner & Smith, 1982). Haapasalo and Tremblay (1994), 11 found familial adversity, low educational and occupational status of the parents, and mother's young age at the birth of the first child to be associated with boys’ developmental patterns of physical aggressiveness. Such individual differences as sex, temperament, and educational experiences have been shown to mediate the potential impact of family stress. For example, Rutter (1982), found two particularly intriguing results with regard to family adversity and problem behavior children. Boys were found more likely to show emotional and behavioral acting out in response to family discord than girls. This finding was not simply a reflection of the higher incidence of problem behavior in males but was an increase in risk for boys confronted with family discord. When faced with family discord, children of a difficult temperament also have an increased risk of developing problem behavior. The difficult child is more likely than his/her more mildly mannered counterpart to be the recipient of parent hostility and frustration. In other words, the difficult child receives the brunt of scapegoating when family tensions run high. This interaction style becomes the basis on which the child forms mental representations about relationships with 12 oy- AV!” \ vullubv' ' . ARA'Q A\ a ‘ v—-|ro O v-r A .u n. , An .5 :.'~‘ " ”veuu. ‘ I “~‘ .' A ,. ugh..-‘ ' a “ ‘~"I--. ,- vu. ~~_.-, . ’ ‘ .pA ‘~~. h l a... .“ ‘- . "as _ I. ~.g-‘_‘.v N"‘\. cu. ‘ \ b§-~‘~. ‘. V Q Q‘;n. “'. ~.u~‘.-" C p a .2 fiC._ A . ~va.» v“\ «u w-“ h— 9 VV“..‘_ Q.. (I) VA 5 b“~ A ‘ '“n. ‘."4. V.y A " F. U h. . ‘V “a f. ~- M ..w A “- f~fl~ "V.."\ ‘Vv I A» .. .“JN‘H’ 5‘” others, outside of the family (Adamson & Bakeman, 1985; Caspi & Elder, 1988; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989). Family Stress is Linked to Family Cohesion Many theorists contend that the most profound impact of stress on the child is through its detrimental effect on family cohesion and parenting style (Belsky, 1984; Campbell, 1990). An aggregation of life stressors disrupts the family's ability to routinize itself. Schedules and structure are quickly tossed aside to address the latest crisis. This reactive adaptation precludes the presence of stability and security in the home. Living in a chaotic home, often leaves family members feeling disjointed and disconnected from one another. In summary, parents plagued by stressors and difficult life circumstances, find it more challenging to provide a supportive environment for their children (McLoyd, 1989). A strong sense of unity is unlikely to co—occur with chaos, instability, and insecurity. However, some families are able to maintain structure, stability, and security, despite an aggregate of stressors. This difference in family cohesion is thought to mediate or moderate the relationship between family stress and child outcomes (Kliewer & Kung, 1998; Rutter, 1987). It is possible that a cohesive family affords the child a secure 13 .A.p.>... vha‘ll... ' a F'v-rnv- - .- .. --«....‘.,,..~ “-A6- "v a- h‘i-bw~-- A a n b a. :— ‘nn. - . a.-‘ (I) ‘1 base that is considered a resource when the child cognitively appraises stressful life events (Kliewer, Sandler, & Wolchik, 1994). According to Garmezy (1985), harmonious family interaction is likely to serve as a protective factor against negative outcomes in the face of stress. Family Cohesion is Linked to Child Aggression According to Haddad, Barocas, and Hollenbeck (1991), a child's risk of developing conduct disorder is largely predictable by the quality of the child's social and family life. Specifically, findings indicated significantly lower levels of family cohesion in families of conduct disordered children than in families of other clinical or control group children. This notion is supported by the work of Roosa, Dumka, and Tein (1996), who found family cohesion to mediate the relationship between family drinking problems and family multiple risks and child conduct disorder. In studying the effects of family environment on child development, Fowler (1980) found an association between child aggression and hostility and family cohesiveness. Namely, those families low in cohesion were more likely to have an aggressive or hostile child. At the other end of the spectrum, cohesive families serve as a protective factor or buffer against negative 14 l \ AP‘ fl “ ”a“; V O . . , .. ..p VPR blah-vat Au. «4“ 7;: outdo-Iv — A! A . “yr-y.“ ‘NivL‘x... v 6 K) (I) a; (I) ' 1 “‘u. '_ V~...~‘ '- FA In» IF. ‘5 v. I'VA ‘myvgtfl ~h » : . . ’5‘ V .‘. '- .“ ' 4 :- ~~LF Q -~.‘ : . -.'AL- s. h. .- "-.‘~V 5 s .:-A ‘I ‘4 :0 ‘J— I “: K. yals . Q s o «‘3‘.) . ‘ AA 4"\~. 9: n”,- I“ child outcomes even in the face of serious life stressors. Burbach and Borduin (1986) demonstrated that families characterized by warmth and cohesiveness were likely to experience fewer behavioral problems with their children than were families lacking these characteristics. One difficulty with family cohesion as a construct is determining whose opinion is most reflective of actual family cohesion: mother, father, child, observer, or some combination (Feldman, Wentzel, & Gehring, 1989). Another difficulty is deciphering the mechanisms by which family cohesion acts to affect child outcomes. Some research suggests that high levels of family stress are mediated by family cohesion (Roosa, Dumka, & Tein, 1996). Other research suggests that family cohesion moderates the relationship between family stress and child outcomes (Kliewer & Kung, 1998; Weist, Freedman, Paskewitz, Proescher, & Flagherty, 1995). Despite these controversies, family cohesion's impact on child behavior problems has been a robust finding throughout the literature (Barber & Buehler, 1996; Kliewer & Kung, 1998; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Mason, Cauce, Gonzales, Hiraga, & Grove, 1994; Pillay, 1998; Roosa et al., 1996; Tolan, Gorman-Smith, Huesmann, & Zelli, 1997). 15 . .. .. .. .h . x .c C. L. .3 n. _.. .. a» A: a. u. . . .pu .. .a. 7.. .3 .3 .. a. nu . . ”Iva u . .Fb O b o . a 5 ri- . . "Ila A v a. ”v.4 .- Q . . . . . . . . . . . a C.- Q» g. 1 c a . . . .3 a: C. u u I J... . u c c Q. . a .: um ~.. 2. 2. ~.. . a. t. D» .. nu ~.. .3 a. . . .3 . . . . .5 a. ... r . Q. .C a. w“ a». (Pu a. .3 . . r. .. uh. .. C. Pu J J .o. It is difficult to determine the mechanisms by which family cohesion serves as a protective factor against negative child outcomes. As mentioned earlier, it is possible that a cohesive family affords the child a secure base that is considered a resource when the child cognitively appraises stressful life events (Kliewer et al., 1994). However, it is also possible that families lacking cohesion are also lacking in other areas, which results in deleterious effects on their children. Although the exact mechanisms by which family cohesion acts to protect children have not been studied exhaustively, there is some work in the field that Suggests low levels of family cohesion is related to poor family communication and negative parenting practices. Family stress has been demonstrated to negatively impact parenting practices (Giles-Sims, Straus, & Sugarman, 1995; Justice & Justice, 1976; Rutter, 1987). Belsky (1984) found it likely that the impact of stress on the child is through its detrimental effect on family cohesion and parenting style. Deater-Deckard, Pinkerton, and Scarr (1996) found that mothers reporting high stress and low levels of social support were more likely to have problem behaviored children. Speaking specifically to the mechanism by which family cohesion works, Tolan, Gorman-Smith, 16 . ,. -..A' 7-. ‘- .vod.-v.. AAan— -y-. p. bv- .r-‘ae-\ AA'AFQ A, a—\ UV.av\—-V.. -‘F‘O-r. ""‘“‘-Vs -. 0 a (I) (h I“ D (l! a... A -\ “v- V""'.».. '1’ ll! '1 / ’1} Huesmann, and Zelli (1997) reported a strong and positive relationship between family cohesion and family communication. Furthermore, these researchers found family cohesion to be associated with parental discipline and monitoring styles. Coughlin and Vuchinich (1996) also revealed a strong correlation between parent-child relations, measured similarly to typically used family cohesion instruments, and parental disciplinary practices. These studies suggest that the mechanism by which family cohesion acts to impact child relations may be embedded in family communication style and parental disciplinary practices. Parent Disciplinary Practices are Linked to Child Aggression and to Child Adaptive Behavior Parental use of harsh discipline places children at risk for a variety of negative developmental outcomes including delinquency, conduct disorder, aggressive behavior, psychopathology, academic failure, substance abuse, and peer and familial discord (Kazdin, 1987b; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1983). Many of these developmental outcomes follow the child into adulthood where the harshly disciplined child becomes the harshly disciplining parent. This cycle of violence has been demonstrated in many 17 It] (1‘ ‘ Aac- .,.‘_‘ v-_ ."“‘« -v "‘ ' v‘. \ H... U . ‘ ~ ‘ V v._ ' (I) . Q ...~ ““d c b. . KPH ~a .‘u“\. I "A; :- :_ 4:: .“.E Gr ’_ ~ ~ n.“ .-...~:SS; studies (Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Chyi-In, 1991; Straus, 1983; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). Additional studies have demonstrated a strong relationship between social economic status and harsh parenting practices (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Garbarino, 1976). This makes it difficult to determine if the cycle of violence is a direct result of harsh discipline or an indirect result of the cycle of poverty. That is, does harsh discipline provide a parenting model that the adult child reflexively replicates or does transmission of social economic status from parent to child, cause similar stressors which result in the adult child’s use of harsh punishment? It is also possible that children raised by use of harsh discipline come to value a strict and harsh disciplinary style. Burgess and Youngblade (1988) propose that a general personality style is transmitted across generations rather than a specific parenting style. In other words, the transmission is much more global than a set of parenting practices but instead involves an interactional style that encompasses social interaction with one's children and extends into other domains of life as well (Caspi & Elder, 1988; Patterson et al., 1989). Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, and Chyi—In (1991) attempted to identify the mechanisms 18 6 a a F v v .u p. ' 1 (I) l 1 :7r“ ‘ “‘L““ Q . q '1‘.’ . P’I‘ch U‘~~Il '1. ‘ .1 l C» C'- - A '1 “~'“‘u“- ‘! ~ N I ‘ ‘x‘ic ~V‘Q ‘ ‘ \I‘.‘V most responsible for the generational transmission of harsh parenting practices. They found only weak or inconclusive support for the indirect but did find support for a direct relationship. In other words, it seems most likely that the transmission of harsh parenting style is due to reflexive reenactment of the aggressive parenting model. This assertion is supported by the development of models that implicate parental use of coercive discipline in the development of coercive behaviors in children (Patterson, 1986; Patterson & Bank, 1986). Ineffective parental discipline in combination with poor parental monitoring is predictive of early childhood conduct problems (Eddy & Fagot, 1991; Patterson et al., 1989). Specific findings are that erratic, harsh, physical or inconsistent punishment; poor supervision; parental rejection, indifference, or hostility are all related to childhood and adolescent aggression (Eron et al., 1991; Kazdin, 1987b; Loeber, 1988; McCord, 1990; Patterson et al., 1991; Wisdom, 1989). Ineffective parenting styles often lack the use of rationalization as a part of the punishment process. Rationalization occurs when a parent explains to the child why punishment is necessary and what purpose the punishment is to serve. These sorts of exchanges are thought to assist the child with the 19 .— '- an r A 0...»..ou- - Afl.4\ ’fl'fl pl Ug.»...-a. . A. 8" s U VI-oou r- App- aa'p— ‘ bu-v--- . a . .. V'_~- (:0. .H "A*. n...~- b a 'I' “A. a ~‘. ‘5': ”F- U ‘h. .‘H . aflvA ‘~L."‘ ‘H a . ‘ Ih‘ _ N w- rm‘i- .2. )1. ~ i ~QA a 'CCA. ‘ w‘- internalization of parental standards. Internalization of parental expectation is the goal of the co-regulation stage of child development. Once the child has internalized parental standards, the child is capable of self— regulation. Because this entire process is thwarted by inept parenting styles, the child does not arrive at the stage of successful self-regulation (Kuczynski, 1984; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). In addition to directly impacting the child's ability to self regulate, coercive parenting styles deprive the child of opportunities to develop logical thinking skills. Effective punishment includes justification for parental behavior, which lays the foundation of logic for a developing child. The child becomes aware that particular behaviors have necessary consequences and from these learnings the child generalizes this expectation to other life experiences. The ability to reflect on the logic behind decisions is an essential ingredient in developing and maintaining relationships with others and in being able to communicate effectively. Parent/Child Social Interaction Style is Linked to Child Aggression and to Child Adaptive Behavior Epidemiological and clinical studies have demonstrated an association between preschool behavior problems and 20 a I J U vhf family factors (Campbell, Breaux, Ewing, Szumowski, & Pierce, 1986; Fraiberg, 1980), particularly relevant is parent-child social interaction style (Baird, Haas, McCormick, Carruth, & Turner, 1992; Baumrind, 1971) and quality of attachment (Erikson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985). Parent interaction style has a marked impact on a child's development. Through interaction with parents, children learn how to communicate with others. Much of the parent/child social interaction research focuses on attachment issues (Ainsworth, 1973; Crandell, Fitzgerald, & Whipple, 1997; Crowell, O'Connor, Wollmers, Sprafkin, & Rao, 1991; Haft & Slade, 1989). Although this body of literature elucidates the potential causes for effective and ineffective communication styles and provides an alternative method to assess the parent/child relationship, a detailed literature review of attachment is beyond the scope of the current study. However, it is important to point out that attachment theorists find parents with secure attachments to their parental figures are more likely to engage in positive interactions with their own children. Several studies support a generational transmission of insecure attachments between caregivers and their offspring (Crandell et al., 1997; Crowell & Feldman, 1989; Griffin & Harlow, 1966; Haft 21 w. (I) o m t) (I! ‘ -. “ ';”- u.. -. uni—i: . - O A. Dr; I .. .5... - l ”' z c . v-ug-‘ g, “‘w-v-r.- v‘o. ».a..- r.~, -...¥_ . 7 ‘Na ' ll ~U“ a . ‘ 5“ . ~"rap— — A "eu-‘\‘_‘,l ‘ — — — fla‘a-:" ‘HO ‘a.~‘.‘: . :1...’ II A. suns" ~.._ ‘ .,A_‘ ‘- - 12.. ‘4. ' ‘ufl -"~. : ~~; '7 “I_‘~ ' - t“ , aA ‘- A‘ C V‘ ‘lll L n u 'Gm. . ‘. “' A .- “ H ~ '~" "Hv. |~V‘ t ‘_.‘ Al ‘ K Na“ “r.‘ ”v v alc‘ n A. a.~ U «‘. .r - a a» ”5 iv ‘. “\e t.,“‘ «'5'. 0 fl :‘v.‘ “C 42".” .~"~ at ya l .lzq‘ u ‘n_. yd» ~ ‘I & Slade, 1989). This pattern of generational transmission of negative parent interaction style is important in view of the fact that interaction style forms the basis for the child's knowledge of cause and effect and develOpment of communication skills, social interaction skills, and style of interactaction with others (Adamson & Bakeman, 1985; Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 1998; Mallinckrodt, 1992; Oldershaw & Walters, 1989). Both physical and nonphysical forms of play have been demonstrated to influence the developmental outcomes of early childhood (MacDonald & Parke, 1984; Parke & Tinsley, 1987; Power, 1985; Power & Parke, 1982). Fathers typically engage in more physical forms of play than do mothers. This form of play is assumed to assist the development of affect regulation, while also providing the child with the opportunity to practice regulation of aggressive behaviors (MacDonald & Parke, 1984; Parke & Tinsley, 1987; Power, 1985). Nonphysical play, synchronized turn taking behaviors, and verbal exchanges, which characterize play more typical of mothers, are thought to teach children strategies to initiate and maintain peer interactions (MacDonald & Parke, 1984; Power, 1985). Children's interactive abilities emerge through parent interaction and 22 . 'NO -“ ‘ I I ., . C» (v u b .v.“ p .. e r. E 5 a. .r i. O . n . .nw ~ . AV \ c 5& . Au. 5 .m V. .n. .. A; J. «u ~. . .3 f. . .3 u. .3 . . v . e. . . . . “w .. .3 .. . . . . .a. . . 5.. ._. r. u” r. a e z“ ..I. at. .I . an . . m... M... m... . :. A.. u - ~5‘ I‘ L n a» .3 Fr; v C. x“:- 5 ‘a i. a“ ‘ \ I! v. A a w... .2. s .: .n .l .p .. a » Q. .X. C. are later transferred to exchanges with peers (Adamson & Bakeman, 1985). Maccoby (1980) has argued that a number of parent variables are important in reducing the likelihood of child behavior problems. This multifaceted interaction of parent variables includes parental warmth, response contingency, facilitation of self discovery, and sensitivity of control (Baird et al., 1992; Baumrind, 1971; Crandell et al., 1997; Dowdney, 1985; Gardner, 1987; Parpal & Maccoby, 1985a; Pettit & Bates, 1989). It is not the mere frequency of particular parenting behaviors that provide meaning but the patterns and combinations of behaviors that occur. These dyadic profiles provide insight into the nature and quality of parent-child social interactions (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Baird et al., 1992; Chess, Thomas, & Birch, 1959; Mahoney, Fors, & Wood, 1990). Parent response contingency provides the child with the fundamental knowledge necessary to understand cause and effect relationships. When a parent effectively responds to the child's expression of need, the child learns that a behavior has meaning to others and consequence to him/herself (Lewis & Goldberg, 1969). It is through such exchanges that children learn that they are capable of impacting the surrounding environment (Mallinckrodt, 1992). 23 A‘.‘" aar- «~- yavu an "na.-. FD \ ......._.-~ .. _ - "“ .cv- a. b.“ v 'V‘wA'A‘r_ .. \ :- “"r-»o.- _. .a ‘V'I-N ‘7 "§.-.‘ a \- . “v:o- 'a ‘-‘-. “i . ~ C‘- I .2 ‘l- -“ -‘.~ . “-‘~“~Vl- \ ‘ .1 'CQF-’:. “"§..._‘ ‘ . "' c-u- an... v.‘ \— . - '~ :~ -,_ ‘9 Q“.-".. rfl‘. -~. ~: .u—~v~ ‘ - “h A . v‘ 41'“ ’2 ._V“ V ‘ . 5 “a .‘, v A..- ‘..C \r ,. 1‘... 't.“£.v-.,“_ “~‘,,. i‘.‘ I... ,. "‘6‘ Such understanding is necessary for the formulation of self-regulatory behaviors (Parpal & Maccoby, 1985b), a process often found lacking in aggressive children. Haft and Slade (1989) found that insecure mothers were inconsistently responsive to infant affective expressions or were consistently rejecting, while secure mothers demonstrated consistently positive response contingency. During the first year of a child's life, particularly the first quarter of the first year, Isabella, Belsky and von Eye (1989) found that mothers' contingent responses were positively related to children's secure attachments. Maccoby and Martin (1983) contend that consistent, positive responsiveness combined with mutual expressions of warmth and enjoyment, may provide the foundation for cohesive relationships and enhance the likelihood of cooperation between mother and child. Supporting this assertion, Isabella and Belsky (1991) found that 1-month old infants of inconsistent and unresponsive mothers were more likely to be insecurely attached at the 3- and 9-month follow-up observation. The impact of parent directiveness is somewhat unclear. Several studies have found parent directiveness to provide a scaffold for development and to be associated with positive child outcomes. For example, parent 24 can" .- id~' -r ."" h... .AA- U.- ..-. . .. “A. >_ ...Q ‘r‘ A‘ .“v‘ (D (I) .5A7a Q‘ ‘. ..""‘.~ ‘\ ‘ . : F=A.“.— ‘ "'¥-I'_ a. u ~"Ar> 5 #- ‘~ V"‘ I) “I "a directiveness has been found to broaden the child's scope of interest, provide alternative methods of play, and set goals for the child to progress to forms of play that require increasingly complex cognitive processing (Gardner, 1994; Landry, Garner, Swank, & Baldwin, 1996; Tannock, 1988). However, another body of literature has indited parent directiveness as being stifling, overbearing, and restrictive in the range of child play experimentation. Theorists holding the latter View, contend that parent directiveness decreases the child's process of self- discovery, removes the intrinsic incentive of play, and deprives the child of creative expression in play (Mahoney, Finger, & Powell, 1985). In comparing low and high risk preterm infants, Garner and Landry (1994) found that maternal directive behavior tended to overload the high risk preterm infants. In an attempt to reconcile this discrepancy in findings, researchers have begun to examine potential subcomponents of play that may further elucidate the effect of parent directiveness. When directiveness co—occurs with facilitation and child participation then optimal infant development is supported. On the contrary, optimal infant development is thwarted when the directiveness crosses the 25 ...- -r~ — p J u.. .-uv .... " cil- I .l.. a .. a, .p.. .“I—r‘ uhnsu--- . ,— ~.oo—-n ’4‘ \ i.'-~. ‘ a . v;- «0--.. _ a' .— “--‘-~.a ‘raa‘ ~\_ “ ""~- .a *rw-‘A* \p.‘ -v.._~" ‘. . Q A-“ ~ —“ .‘~" Q- . ' ~. ' ~ g.‘ a. . 4" (nv line and becomes intrusive (Barnard & Kelly, 1990; Tannock, 1988). Maternal sensitivity of control is typically operationalized by the style of directives the mother gives. Studies have found that child compliance levels are related to maternal sensitivity of control. Namely, if these directives are issued in an authoritarian style as opposed to an explanatory style, nonproblem children are less likely to comply with parental directives (Kuczynski, 1984; Schaffer & Crook, 1979). Conversely, the explanatory directive is more likely to result in child internalization of parental standards (Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1983). With respect to the typical developmental trend, Power (1985) found that with increasing infant age, mothers of girls were more directive during play, whereas mothers of same aged boys were less directive. In 3-year olds, Campbell (1986) found the reverse scenario; mothers were more directive of sons than of same aged daughters. It also seems that mothers of children with disabilities seem to exert much more directiveness than do mothers of normal children (Campbell, 1973; Cunningham, Reuler, Blackwell, & Deck, 1981; Tannock, 1988). Parent intrusiveness is characterized by parental behaviors that "overload" the child and fail to respect the 26 child's boundaries and disengagement cues (Beebe & Stern, 1977; Field, 1982b; Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 1998). Researchers have characterized child-parent interactions as: action cycles (Spitz, 1964), reciprocal processes (Brazelton, 1988), or processes of adaptation (Thoman, Becker, & Freese, 1978). All of which imply a bi— directional relationship that is dependent on a delicate balance of give and take, expression and reception, and interpretation and responsiveness between the members of the dyad. Although, this research focuses on the bi- directionality of the child-parent relationship, these researchers agree that the mother, possessing higher levels of cognitive awareness and ability to be empathic, carries the burden of responsibility for ensuring that rhythmic or~ synchronous exchanges occur. Asynchronous exchanges can occur for a magnitude of reasons. For instance, a particular child may provide only weak and ambiguous cues to the mother, the mother may lack the social perception necessary to pick up on the child's cues, or the mother may not value or grant the child's right to autonomy (Barnard & Kelly, 1990; Field, 1982a; Goldberg, 1977; Isabella, Belsky, & von Eye, 1989). In a sample of 73 physically abusive mothers and 43 matched control mothers, Oldershaw, Walter, and Hall (1989) found 27 32.5359 D‘D“V\ Ar .- A unnulgvo ,u. . ‘ ”unpop- db IAVA-blt nag,- -_ ud‘t- Iv '||'.- tiuw .. ~h~ fl ... ~--.-.a H: a ,., A r... “‘ “ ~v.. .( ~"';‘V:‘ ., vald‘dv -‘ ‘ ' “AF6."‘ ‘--.~-.“: ~.-~ . ‘ .P\ _ v; “‘ u-‘~ ‘lq ‘ i h ‘F'lra. ‘haaw‘: . “A _ 5- QA‘.‘ “v VV ‘1 r~ .U‘ 9"," nl“. VIC.“ \F‘A' ‘ Q “A... “ a ‘u «A! \— s V... CA‘ . As‘ v ”A?” ' (- '. - “"sfl‘c s. . , F I fl . -._3..,_ , "'4‘ 2. h A u, ‘ an ‘ l. ‘1' I I '« abusive mothers to engage in significantly more intrusive behaviors while interacting with their children aged 18 to 92 months. Particularly interesting is the finding that these mothers continued to give a directive even after the child was complying. In some cases, the child was engaging in a behavior prior to the mother's initial directive to engage in that behavior. In other words, the intrusive mothers seemed fully unaware of the child's compliance, but continued to give the same directive, even when the child was already in compliance with the directive. When a child becomes overloaded, attempts are made to withdraw from the overwhelming stimuli. Under such circumstances the child will generally try to escape from the source of overload. Typical responses include attempts to turn away from the parent, shift activities, cease to respond to parent questions, clench fists, grimace, contract muscles of torso, neck, and shoulders, or otherwise ignore the perceived parental assault of verbal and/or physical stimuli (Baird et al., 1992; Barnard & Kelly, 1990; Field, 1982a). The purpose of such behavior is to eliminate the source of overload so that the system can reestablish a sense of equilibrium. Whenever parents ignore such disengagement cues, the child loses the opportunity to practice the process of self regulation. If parents 28 an..- vvaa» . :- .3 .ag pa. ’1 continually ignore disengagement cues the child will eventually resign to a position of learned helplessness. Feeling unable to effectively communicate his/her wishes and feeling unable to effect change in the environment the child may cease to willingly engage in social exchanges (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). Children of intrusive parents are found to experience a whole host of negative outcomes. Children of intrusive parents tend to be less compliant and more aggressive (Oldershaw, Walter, & Hall, 1989), obtain lower developmental scores (Mahoney et al., 1985), engage in conflictual sibling interactions (Volling & Belsky, 1992), are less liked by peers (Berghout—Austin & Knudsen— Lindauer, 1990; Putallaz, 1987), and are more likely to be rated by teachers as exhibiting more helpless behaviors and to be less competent than their classmates (Nolen-Hoeksema, Wolfson, Mumme, & Guskin, 1995). Parent facilitation allows for or follows the infant's behavior and allows the infant's withdrawal behavior. This interaction style is thought to teach the child that his/her preferences and boundaries are respected, while simultaneously demonstrating the parent's interests in the child's activity (Baird et al., 1992). The advantage of this style is that it promotes exploration and self- 29 q .- d5u-Jvla. tee-r- » .- .44. w“-.. Q ’~-‘_ -‘h a V‘ .4“ .gl‘.‘ A . - A "I-n.. v. “cm- 5 ~“‘ ,- ‘---: discovery. Attachment theorists have found securely attached mothers to be more supportive (Crowell et al., 1991) and to use an interaction style that promoted self- discovery (Crowell & Feldman, 1989). McCollum and Stayton (1985) found an increase in child's social communication skills following parental use of a facilitative style. Tomasello and Farrar (1986) found that children of facilitative parents developed language skills more quickly than children of parents using other interaction styles. A potential shortcoming of this parenting style is that it does not provide a challenging environment to stimulate the child to higher levels of cognitive play, as does a more directive style (Gardner, 1994; Landry et al., 1996; Tannock, 1988). Infant initiation involves an active verbal, gestural, physical, or proximal seeking behavior engaged in by the infant and directed toward the parent (Baird et al., 1992). Infant initiation demonstrates the child's willingness and desire to engage in social exchanges with the parent and seems to positively influence the parent's interaction style. Best, House, Barnard, and Spicker (1994) found cultural differences in child initiations of affection and showing and sharing behaviors. These differences were related to parental interaction style as well as to sex of 30 .,..... A .n-o-Qfly- w;h.. ‘ “"~A¢.- tug"- v ~H's a - tn‘be ’- A“ a :7 I“? ‘ ...S‘e: ~.‘ ~ yur‘ V \A§ . ~~Y; V‘ a ‘ “““ \ V L "L \‘ A .l‘ty. \ the child. It seems likely that parenting style and child initiation are bi-directionally related. Girolametto (1988) found an increase in child initiation following parental training and use of appropriate response contingency. Additionally, developmentally delayed infants have been found to initiate social interaction, without first being prompted by an adult, less often than their normal peers (Mahoney et al., 1990). However, it should also be noted that a subset of mother's of children with Down Syndrome made more than twice as many initiations toward their children than the other subgroup of Down Syndrome mothers or controls. Forster, Eyberg and Burns (1990) found conduct problem children to initiate fewer questions or comments of praise during the Child Directed Interaction Phase of the Dyadic Parent-child Interaction Coding System. This is particularly striking since this section of the instrument is designed to allow the child the opportunity to lead the free play. Parent interaction style that encourages child initiation helps the child to develop social interaction skills and later positive peer relations (MacDonald & Parke, 1984). For these reasons, infant initiation is included as an important measure of parent-child social interaction. 31 Dyadic theme continuity exists when the theme of social interaction is carried over from one 15 second period to the next and involves related simultaneous or turn-taking behaviors by both partners (Baird et al., 1992). Mothers of children with communication skill deficits have been found to display low levels of dyadic theme continuity (Tomasello, 1988). Parental directives toward continuing the cycle of play are highly motivating to young nonproblem children (Rheingold, Cook, & Kolowitz, 1987). Theme continuity requires a sequential exchange of behavior and ideas from parent to child and from child back to parent. Infants are stimulated by the realization that their actions influence the reactions of another (Papousek, 1967). Additionally, these types of interactions teach the child about reciprocity which the child will later use to sustain healthy peer and family relationships (Bronfenbrenner, 1993). Consequently, ability of the dyad to sustain a theme of social interaction is indicative of positive child development outcomes. With respect to aggression and other problem behaviors, researchers consistently find distinctions in parent interaction style across groups of problem and nonproblem children. Furthermore, mothers show surprising stability in their style of interaction (Campbell et al., 32 unbpav'c ‘I‘Vbll'. ‘ h “‘ a ll q a dag... y a - | .A""" Dr». “tuna ...., _ .‘. .— - .1. “3: Q ”by N u- p.’ VH“‘A~.. ‘\ an A“ ..' I ‘ ‘V‘«vl ‘ Gran" ”A. “"5: ...., fi 5 ;‘E~av~< .u, L“‘ - Q ~ rah“ u 1986). Nuttall, Stollak, Fitzgerald, and Messe (1985) found mother's perceptions of child behavior to affect the quality of parent-child social interaction. Campbell, Breaux, Ewing, Szumowski, and Pierce (1986) found mothers of problem children aged 2 to 3 years provided more redirection at initial assessment and made more negative control statements at follow-up than did mothers of nonproblem children. Overall, mothers of problem children and of controls significantly decreased the frequency of structuring and negative control statements at follow-up. However, in comparison to one another, control group mothers made significantly fewer negative control statements than mothers of problem children. During initial assessment, mothers of problem youngsters suggested alternative activities more frequently than control group mothers. At the follow-up assessment the mothers of problem children and the mothers of the control group children no longer differed in frequency of suggesting alternative activities. In summary, problem dyads were rated as showing less positive affect, more conflict, and less appropriate directiveness than control dyads. Similarly, mothers of hyperactive children engage in more directive and negative patterns of interaction than do mothers of nonhyperactive 33 . . .. F" NV“ ‘vaaaod- V: CB" vv.oo~~.,.. I! ~,.. ‘u—n . a... .. \ HQ ~-'-—~, . Ar. 1" "“¢-\A .A . uy - l‘ '(1 l b.‘ A. ‘ (I) I ) ”A ~\- ‘- y. fl] children (Campbell, 1973; Cunningham & Bakley, 1979; Mash & Johnson, 1982). Gardner (1994) found different social interaction styles in mothers of problem versus mothers of nonproblem children. He reports, mothers of nonproblem children tended to initiate more activity, provide suggestions, ask questions of, use sensitive forms of control, be highly responsive, and engage in more positive affect than the mothers of problem children. In addition to parent-child social interaction differences across problem dyads and nonproblem dyads, some gender difference have been found. Boys were provided with more structure and given alternative activities more often than girls. Mothers of boys and girls did not differ in frequency of praise or negative control statements. Boys, however, were more noncompliant than girls (Campbell et al., 1986). Some research suggests that these communication differences are parental reactions to the child's behavior. Barkley and Cunningham (1980) observed a change in social interaction style of mothers whose hyperactive children were on stimulant medication. While the children were on medication, there was a decrease in frequency of mother intervention. Presumably, because the child's behavior was medically corrected, mothers spontaneously changed their 34 A'AIDV ,- V‘— n Y L-uu‘.vu F- A . Arh' A 9' -~..- . . rn. .. a. v..c '- “ . v" y L behavior to meet the new demands of the child's behavior. On the contrary, many researchers feel strongly that parental communication style precedes problem behaviors and in fact sets the stage for maladaptive development. For example, Maccoby and Martin (1983) assert that maternal deficits in responsiveness, warmth and sensitivity are likely to be causal factors in establishing a developmental trajectory of behavior problems. In the absence of positive parent/child social interaction, children are at risk of developing maladaptive communication styles and ineffective interpersonal skills. Children high in aggressiveness or other antisocial behaviors are commonly lacking interpersonal skills and effective means of communication. Therefore, they are often rejected by their peers (Carlson et al., 1984), often times this deficiency also affects the youth’s interactions with adults, including parents, teachers, and other authority figures (Freedman et al., 1978). Child Age is Linked to Child Aggression Studies have demonstrated remarkable stability in aggressive behavior (Baron & Richardson, 1994; Conger & Miller, 1966; Kupersmidt & Coie, 1990; Robins, 1966; West & Farrington, 1973). What is less clear is at what age aggression emerges and how aggression changes with age. 35 Speaking to the onset of physical aggression, Tremblay and his colleagues (1999) found a substantial increase in physical aggression from 12 to 17 months of age in a retrospective study involving 511 17-month old children. Tremblay contends that research involving an adolescent onset of aggressive behaviors is misleading. He found that 80% of the 17-month olds in his study were already exhibiting aggressive behavior and he projects that most of the others experience this onset by two years of age. Studies involving the developmental trends of aggressive behavior behavior tend to be quite dated (Hapkiewicz, 1974; Hartup, 1974; Shantz & Pentz, 1972) and offer competing conclusions (Fagot & Hogan, 1985; Feshbach, 1970; Hartup, 1974). Some theorists claim that aggression increases with age (Cairns, Cairns, Neckermann, Ferguson, & Gariepy, 1989; Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998). In a longitudinal study of aggressive behavior and television viewing, Bron, Huesmann, Brice, Fisher, and Mermelstein (1983) found aggression to increase over time, at least up until age 11. Others claim that aggression decreases with age (Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Loeber, 1982; Tremblay, 1999). Fagot and Hogan (1985) report decreases in aggressive 36 .. .- y-..~.¢ ' - D . ‘VA-P .OVI~ Q - - a- a - r_ J‘s-run — I“ 4;) (I! (f) \L) ‘V .ll-n‘ (I) (I) 'x 1h 1 L). i 1 ) "rak ‘VL‘-...; 6“")- ju‘Q - . ~VQ‘ ., ‘1‘. ‘v .1?“ behavior (taking objects, hitting, kicking, and pushing) from 18 to 35 months in a sample of 48 toddlers. It is quite possible that findings are not as discrepant as they appear on the surface. Perhaps overall, aggressive behaviors decrease over time as children learn to inhibit aggressive behavior and become better able to verbally express themselves but for children who do not master these skills aggressive behaviors escalate. Stattin and Trost (2000) found that early childhood conduct problems escalated with age only when accompanied by poor parent-child relationships. Child Sex is Linked to Child Aggression Previous researchers expected and accepted gender differences in aggression studies as evidence for biological differences across the sexes. Current research is reshaping the way we interpret gender differences. Maccoby and Jacklin (1980) found school-aged boys to be more aggressive than girls. Burdett and Jensen (1983) also found boys significantly more aggressive than girls. Quite unexpectedly however, the young males in their study became less aggressive from third to sixth grade, while the aggressive behavior of the girls increased during this same time frame. Several researchers find that gender 37 RA~.'..- ‘ o-c' yu“.‘v~ Fr”,- it. 2“-L—-,. It. )- ‘§ '\ a“. ‘Q'. h... -IA“ (11 ‘A . 'V ( 3‘. 4“ , * ‘I 4~ A :‘A‘vre differences are partially explained by the operational definition of aggression and the setting of the study. Dishion, Patterson, and Kavanagh (1992) discuss the importance of the context in which the child’s behavior is being measured. For instance, using the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1992), they found girls to show levels of problem behavior equal to that of their male counterparts within the context of the family. However, within the context of the school setting the level of problem behavior of girls was only half that of the boys. Tremblay et al. (1999) found aggressive behavior was influenced by an interaction effect between sex and presence of a sibling. Presence of a sibling increased the likelihood of physically aggressive behavior for both males and females. In the absence of a sibling, boys were more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior than girls. Other evidence suggests that levels of aggressive behavior are similar across gender but differ in content or type of aggression. According to Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, and Kaukiainen (1992), males are more likely to participate in physical aggression whereas females are more likely to aggress in less direct ways. That is, males are more likely to hit, kick, or punch others and girls are more likely to ignore, talk negatively about, or reject others. Also 38 .FV‘A' u-‘hhv. .o C‘ . Ca ..V _~. Ava r. ad} Qua . . an. .3 55 r § ...- s ‘v .' v77- - A. ....s.a . Vb supporting this view is the work of Crick and Grotpeter (1995), they have classified aggression into overt aggression (more typical of boys) and relational aggression (more typical of girls). Child Temperament is Linked to Child Aggression Although much of this literature is in a state of transition, temperament plays an important role in explaining individual differences. Early temperament may impact the nature of child relationships with parents, peers, and educators. If continuity is assumed, temperament may also impact the adult relationships with intimate partners, social networks, and employers. The nature of temperament’s influence on development is not fully understood but it is generally agreed that temperament plays a significant role in development across the lifespan. Strongest support for the influence of child temperament is found in the behavioral outcomes literature. Research indicates that child temperament is related to later behavior and other self regulation processes. Block and Block (1980) have demonstrated stability in ego resiliency and ego control over the course of development. In their longitudinal study, these two processes remained relatively stable from age 3 to age 23. Moreover, patterns 39 r: .G .C u . a v p. A v . . .. . ... a. e an» 5 . ~u. v. Q. .3 .uu .C 9. . . ~‘. 9 L” a. .. p . .nw o s v. .u u .3 1 h . «wait ‘3 'n 17 1‘ I A ‘~ .3 w u Vd 9 s G» Qv L. n. .. 4 J G» VNu t «nu CV9. §§A v” H s: 1“ ‘. d . x 3 (“u I“ “I! NV; « I nu. «v Ce in these processes were significantly related to behavioral outcomes, including aggressive behavior that persisted into early adulthood (Block, Block, & Keyes, 1988). Caspi and Silva (1995) found impulsiveness at age 3 to be related to adult behavior. More specifically, as adults these individuals reported low tolerance for frustration, relationships marked by discord, and they scored notably high in negative emotionality. On the contrary, inhibition at age 3 was related to lack of assertiveness in adulthood. These individuals reported exercising caution in their personal relationships and scored low in social potency. Newman et a1. (1997) found that undercontrolled child temperament at age 3 resulted in lower levels of adult adjustment and increased interpersonal conflict across settings. In a longitudinal study examining the relationship between temperament, family characteristics and crime convictions, temperament at age three was the only discriminating factor between 18 year olds arrested for violent verses nonviolent crimes (Henry, Caspi, Moffitt, & Silva, 1996). These examples demonstrate the potentially far reaching impact of temperament style. The research of Chess and Thomas (1977) suggests that children's early temperamental characteristics shape adult personality development and psychopathology. They have 40 ’ I 'A‘wn A! oar-lug y“ ." A‘CA' ”V Uqu. arm". 5-, p. filo\1|.\“_¥ O {"0 VA: . ~u\, t‘tl fl. Cr D“e . -. .N‘ ‘h ‘ *5 h \" ~VHd, ‘ 1 o I‘ ‘~,. « found child temperament classification as easy or difficult to discriminate later outcomes. Difficult temperament style provides particularly powerful prediction of later adjustment problems across settings. For example, data from the New York Longitudinal Study revealed that individual early childhood differences in temperament traits including irregularity, nonadaptability, intensity, and negative mood were related to externalizing problems in late childhood (Chess & Thomas, 1987). In a sample of 3 to 5 year old boys, Jansen, Fitzgerald, Ham, and Zucker (1995) found that those expressing characteristics of difficult temperament were more likely to score in the clinical range of total behavior problems than were their more mildly mannered peers. Similarly, Pettit and Bates (1989) found early difficult temperament in infants to predict both internalizing and externalizing problems through 5 years of age. Temperament style impacts less dramatic aspects of life as well. As discussed in Buss and Plomin (1984), temperament may guide environment selection processes. Thus, temperament may influence preference for an environment in addition to exerting an influence on the environment. 41 .v-on. ho-voc "an an“, ”(1 n; (D ra‘ ‘y-' '1 (h ‘1' 4 V I): ‘nv. -H‘ F'A 8 Vv. Q ."‘+ . r—l ., . Child Temperament is Linked to Parent/Child Interaction Style and Parent Disciplinary Practices Parents play a crucial role in the development of their children. Temperament theorists have attempted to understand the influence of temperament through examination of the parent-child relationship. It seems likely that parents may alter their behavior or response patterns, depending on the temperament of the child. According to interactional theory, child temperament is likely to play a role in the nature and quality of the parent-child relationship. As indicated by the findings of Bates, Olson, Pettit, and Bayles (1982), revealing differences in the nature and quality of the parent-child relationship may not provide self evident insight. For example, in their study, difficult children were found to receive more parental attention than did easier children. Parental attention is a factor typically found to be associated with more positive outcomes (O'Connor, Sigman, & Brill, 1986). Studies of parent-infant relationships have not found infant temperament to impact the quality of caregiver responsiveness (Daniels, Plomin, & Greenhalgh, 1984). Sroufe contends that the quality of attachment security is not impacted by child temperament. Because caregivers are likely to make necessary adaptations to their child's 42 temperament, he calls for an emphasis on these processes instead (as cited in Bates, 1987). Therefore it seems that early in a child's life, parents are willing to make the necessary adjustments to remain responsive to the needs of their infant. Perhaps, this explains the general lack of differences observed in parent behavior across the care of infants of various temperament styles. Despite the sparse evidence to support temperament’s impact on infant/caregiver relationships, by two years of age the influences of temperament become more detectable. Perhaps by this time the parent views the child as more capable of making adjustments to demands. Lee and Bates (1985) found that mothers of difficult sons were less controlling and directive than were mothers of easy sons. Instead of proactive methods of regulation, these mothers resorted to reactive methods. That is, increased use of short and negative verbal exchanges and physical restraint were found to accompany difficult child temperament. In this study, circular reactions were observed. In other words, the child's behavior problems escalated in response to maternal control and maternal control became more reactive in response to increased behavior problems. This example clearly demonstrates the potential for the child’s temperament to elicit particular environmental stimuli. 43 £1. (I) 0,1 (I) In addition to impacting parent disciplinary techniques, child temperament may play a role in determining parent or educator teaching strategy. Maccoby, Snow, and Jacklin (1984) found gender differences in parental teaching practices across temperament. More specifically, they found that mothers of difficult sons were less instructive but mothers of difficult daughters were more instructive than were mothers of easy sons or daughters. As in the case with findings related to temperament and parent responsiveness, further interpretation of findings will be required as perplexing relationships such as those reported by Maccoby et al. are found. The goodness-of-fit model supported by Lerner and Lerner (1987) is an attempt to understand such interactional processes. It is circular functions that are thought to mediate the child outcomes that are related to particular temperament styles (Lerner & Lerner, 1987). For example, a child who sleeps irregularly, may not present difficulty for parents who have flexible schedules. However, for the parent that has demanding, rigidly structured job requirements this same infant could be viewed as difficult. The parents’ interpretation of the child's temperament depends upon the context. Therefore, 44 the issue is not the child's temperament or the demands of the context; rather the crucial factor is the goodness-of- fit between the child’s temperament and the demands of the context. A child is exposed to many different contexts, some of which may impose conflictual demands. A child that experiences goodness-of-fit within the home environment may be confronted with conflicts in the school environment or vise versa. For example, if irregularity is expected and accepted within the family, an arrhythmic child experiences goodness—of-fit. However, upon entering the educational system that is structured and orderly, the arrhythmic child may be faced with tensions not previously experienced. This is just one of many possible examples of the goodness-of- fit concept. Stability of Aggression The stability of anti-social behavior across childhood and into adolescence is demonstrated by the findings of several studies (Baron & Richardson, 1994; Conger & Miller, 1966; Robins, 1966; West & Farrington, 1973). Haapasalo and Tremblay (1994) found fighting patterns alone to be strong predictors of self-reported delinquency across a group of 10 to 14 year old boys. In fact, several studies find that the strongest behavioral indicator of delinquency is 45 ~I v. .: €~ 4‘ rs ~\~ childhood aggression (Eron, Walder, Huesmann, & Lefkowitz, 1974; Farrington, 1978; Roff & Wirt, 1984). Aggressive behavior may establish itself in the early elementary years and can maintain a high degree of stability over time (Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Olweus, 1979; Rutter, 1982; West & Farrington, 1973). Unfortunately, aggression, once established, appears to be self-perpetuating and highly resistant to change (Huesmann et al., 1984). Not only does aggression remain stable within the individual, across time but also it is highly stable within families. In fact, stability across generations, as measured by Huesmann et al. (1984), is even more pronounced than stability within the individual. Stability does not appear to be markedly affected by gender differences. Some studies find aggression to be more stable in female than in male populations (Eron, Huesmann, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1972), while others find the reverse relationship (Huesmann et al., 1984; Olweus, 1981), and still others report non-significant differences in stability by gender. Despite this controversy, most researchers find aggression to be relatively stable in both male and female populations. 46 Aggression as a Predictor of Academic Failure Many researchers find that unidentified early aggressive behavior, because of its remarkable stability, leaves the youth vulnerable to substantial risks for negative academic outcomes and decreased life chances. Children and adolescents with severe antisocial behaviors are more likely to be academically inferior to their nonaggressive peers. This includes lower levels of achievement, lower grades, and deficiencies in specific skill areas (Ledingham & Schwartzman, 1984). It seems that teacher perceptions of aggressive youth are also affected. According to Glueck and Glueck (1950), teachers perceive aggressive students as less interested, less invested, and less engaged in academic activities. However, due to the interaction of factors, it is difficult to determine if the child’s aggression provokes negative attitudes from educators or if the educators’ negative attitudes toward the child provoke the aggressive behavior. In some studies, low achievement, low vocabulary, and poor verbal reasoning in children in late elementary school were predictive of later delinquency (Farrington, 1979; Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972). Similarly, the strongest delinquency predictor during the high school years is low grade point average (Polk, 1975; Robins, 1966). 47 Findings by Havighurst, Bowman, Liddle, Mathews, and Pierce (1962) and Cairns, Cairns, and Neckerman (1989) suggest that aggressive behavior is related to early school withdrawal. The nature of this relationship is difficult to decipher, it may be that the youth's aggression creates an atmosphere of social rejection, which the youth eventually attempts to escape through dropping out of school. However, it is possible that aggressive behavior detracts from the student’s ability and willingness to learn, cauSing the youth to withdraw from school due to feelings of failure and inadequacy. Kuperschmidt and Coie (1990) report that both aggression and frequent school absences are significant predictors of early school withdrawal. It seems reasonable that frequent absences are a precursor to actual withdrawal, however, frequent absences may reveal essential qualities regarding the nature of the familial context of the child. Children who are chronically absent from school or move more frequently than others are also at higher risk for early school withdrawal (Cairns & Cairns, 1994). Therefore, it appears that frequent moving, lack of strong social relationships, and aggressive behavior seriously increase a youth’s chances of school failure and drop-out. 48 Aggression as a Predictor of Delinquency and Other Negative Outcomes Childhood aggression is typically studied as a precursor to adolescent delinquency (Roff, 1992). Evidence from several studies, including many using longitudinal designs, converges to demonstrate that early aggressive behavior is indicative of later aggressive, delinquent, or antisocial behavior (Farrington, 1979; Huesmann et al., 1984; McCord, 1983; Pulkkinen, 1983; Stattin & Magnusson, 1989; Tremblay et al., 1992). For instance, Stattin and Magnusson (1989) claim that aggression in boys aged 10 to 13 years is highly related to criminal behavior up to age 26. Similarly, Roff and Wirt (1984) contend that aggressive behavior in peer—rejected boys significantly predicts later delinquency. Also predictive of delinquency are high levels of family adversity and punishment and low levels of monitoring or supervision as perceived by the youth (Haapasalo & Trembly, 1994; Laub & Sampson, 1988; McCord, 1983). Parker and Asher (1987) suggest that problematic peer relations may be a general indicator of negative outcomes as opposed to being predictive of a specific negative outcome. This assertion is also supported by Kupersmidt and Coie's (1990) report that rejected youth 49 are more likely than average, popular, or even neglected youth to face a variety of nonspecific negative outcomes. The link between aggression and negative outcomes warrants sufficient concern to further explore its origins and maintenance. These issues must be better understood in order to create and implement effective methods of prevention and intervention. Aggressiveness and related problem behaviors comprise an alarming 30-50% of all child and adolescent clinic referrals (Gilbert, 1957; Herbert, 1978). Hypotheses As discussed in the literature review, there is a debate about the exact nature of the relationship between family stress and family cohesion. Some research suggests that the effects of high levels of family stress are mediated by family cohesion. Other research suggests that family cohesion moderates the relationship between family stress and child outcomes. Therefore, this study will examine two competing path models. The first path model articulates the relationship between family stress and child aggression as mediated by family cohesion. This model asserts that family stress predicts family cohesion, which in turn predicts both parent disciplinary practices and parent/child social interaction style. The latter two 50 variables are hypothesized to have a direct effect on child aggression and indirect effects through their impact on child temperament. Specific hypotheses are presented in Figure 3 by indicating the expected valence for each relationship present in model 1. Parent-Child Social Interaction Family Stress Child Temperament Parental Discipline Figure 3. Expected Valence for Path Model of Family Stress to Child Outcomes as Mediated by Family Cohesion. The second path model articulates the relationship between family stress and child aggression as moderated by family cohesion. In other words, for families low in stress the effect of family cohesion will be negligible. However, 51 for highly stressed families, family cohesion will play a crucial role in the prediction of child aggression. The second path model varies only with respect to the role of family cohesion; all other relationships are identical to those discussed for the first model. Specific hypotheses are presented in Figure 4 by indicating the expected valence for each relationship present in model 2. Parent-Child Social Interaction Parental Discipline Figure 4. Expected Valences for Path Model of Family Stress to Child Outcomes as Moderated by Family Cohesion. 52 Chapter 3 Methods Subjects The sample for the current analysis was drawn from the Detroit Skillman Parenting Education Program Evaluation project undertaken by Stoffelmayr and his colleagues (1998). The initial plan was to gather data from a total of 300 families. A group of 100 families were to be taken from each of three populations. Therefore, the three hundred families were to be comprised of 100 families who participated in parenting workshops and counseling services provided through the Detroit Health Department Program, Detroit Family Program (DFP; clinic based experimental group); 100 families who participated in a family outreach program, Para-professional Outreach Program (PPOP; home based experimental group); and 100 families who did not participate in either of the above programs (control group). From each of the 300 families, two subjects were studied, the primary caregiver and the target child. Due to budgetary and time constraints we were able to locate and complete interviews with a total of 268 families (85 DFP; 91 PPOP; and 92 Controls). Of these 268 families, two families were not included in the Skillman analysis as a result of missing data. An additional six families were 53 .3 ‘ excluded from analysis in the current study due to the fact that the child's age in each case fell outside of acceptable boundaries for the Child Behavior Checklist/2-3. Therefore, the current study included data on a total of 260 families. In addition to program participation, subjects from DFP and PPOP were required to have at least one child aged 1-1/2 to 4-1/2 years, living in their home at the time of the study (at least 50% of the time), for which s/he was the primary caregiver. Control subjects lacked exposure to both DFP and PPOP (determined by a previous study's control group or by a screening questionnaire) and were required to have at least one child aged 1-1/2 to 4-1/2 years, living in their home at the time of the study (at least 50% of the time), for which s/he was the primary caregiver. There are a total of 520 subjects, the primary caregiver and the target child, 1-1/2 to 4-1/2 years of age, from each of 260 families. If more than one child fell within the designated age range, then the target child was randomly chosen. Primary caregivers were predominantly women, 250 (96.2%) and only 10 (3.8%) were men. Age ranged from 17 to 45 years with a mean of 26.5 years. Of the 260 adult subjects, 210 (80.8%) were Black; 37 (14.2%) were Hispanic or Latino; 11 (4.2%) were white; one was Asian- 54 -~ '9‘ «nu-» fa an." 9 . Cay-u. 9». t- . .. .nu L. Nae by ~\u —.. ”a ‘\. {s a s Pacific; and one individual classified her ethnic background as other. English was reported as the primary language used in the home for 90% of the families. In addition, 9.2% used Spanish as the primary language spoken at home. Religion was an important part of the subjects' lives. Of the 260 families, 153 (58.8%) reported belonging to a church, mosque, or synagogue. Of those belonging to a religious institution, 57.5% reported attending worship services at least once a week. Over 1/2 of caregivers were single and never married (57.7%). Educational backgrounds of the subjects varied but the majority (66.9%) tended to cluster around completion of high school or less. See Table 1 for the complete respondent demographic profile. 55 Table 1. Respondent Demographic Profile Respondent Demographic Profile 11 % Mean Std Dev Sex Female 250 96.2 ldfle 10 38 Total 260 100.0 Age in Years 17-19 21 8.1 20-23 70 26.9 24-28 84 32.3 29-34 49 18.8 35-39 16 6.2 40-45 12 4.6 Total 252 96.9 26.5 6.10 Racial/Ethnic Background Hispanic/Latino 37 14.2 African American 210 80.8 Asian/Pacific Islander 1 0.4 White 11 4.2 Oflwr 1 04 Total 260 100.0 Primary Language English 234 90.0 Spanish 24 9.2 (Mhmr 2 08 Total 260 100.0 Education Less than High School 85 32.7 Vocational Training 5 1.9 Completed High School/GED 84 32.3 Some College 60 23.1 Two Year College Degree 14 5.4 Four Year College Degree 6 2.3 Professsional/Graduate School 5 1.9 Total 259 99.6 3.12 1.17 56 Table l. (cont'd). Respondent Demographic Profile 11 % Mean Std Dev Employment Yes 108 41.5 No 152 58.5 Total 260 100.0 Hours of Work Per Week 0 150 57.7 1 to 20 16 6.2 21 to 40 85 32.7 More than 40 8 3.1 Total 259 99.7 14.6 18.28 Current Marital Status Married 67 25.8 Single-Never Married 150 57.7 Divorced 9 3.5 Widowed 2 0.8 Separated 12 4.6 Partnered 19 7.3 Total 259 99.7 Member of Church, Temple, Mosque or Synagogue Yes 153 58.8 No 106 40.8 Total 259 99.6 57 In summary of the family demographic profile, employment status reflected educational attainment with 152 (58.5%) of the adult subjects unemployed and 108 (41.5%) employed. Of those that worked 17.6% worked under 40 hours per week, 51.9% worked 40 hours per week, and the remainder of individuals worked over 40 hours each week. Annual earnings also reflected the educational attainment data, 55% made less than $15,000. A full 53.5% of the sample received some form or public aid such as ADC or food stamps and 72.7% had government funded healthcare through Medicaid or Medicare. The number of residents living in the home at the time of the interview ranged from 2 to 17, with a mean of 4.8. While many of the residents were family, there is evidence that non-family members were residing in these households. Taking a closer look at the composition of the household, 65.8% of the households consisted of two generations, 32.2% consisted of three generations, and 1.5% consisted of four generations. Keep in mind, the target child may have a teenaged sibling with a child of his/her own living with the family. There was one adult female resident in 61.5% of these households, 27.7% had two adult female residents, three adult females were present in 7.3% of homes, and 2.3% had four adult female residents. This contrasts sharply with the data on male presence in the household. There was 58 no adult male resident in almost 1/2 of the homes (48.8%). One adult male was present in 41.9% of homes, 7.3% had two adult male residents and 1.5% had three adult male residents. Although there seem to be several adults in many of these households, the primary caregiver reported that they were the only parental adult in 64.6% of these homes. See Table 2 for the complete family demographic profile. 59 Table 2. Family Demographic Profile. Family Demographic Profile 11 % Mean Std Dev Adjusted Gross Income $2,500 53 20.4 $7,500 40 15.4 $12,500 50 19.2 $17,500 30 11.5 $22,500 27 10.4 $30,000 58 22.3 Total 258 99.2 $15,232.60 $9,977.81 Government Assistance Yes 139 53.5 No 119 45.8 Total 258 99.3 Medicaid or Medicare Health Care Yes 189 72.2 No 69 26.5 Total 258 98.7 Parent/s in Household 1 168 64.6 2 91 35.0 Total 259 99.6 Number of Household Residents 2 24 9.2 3 45 17.3 4 63 24.2 5 44 16.9 6 43 16.5 7 23 8.8 3 8 3.1 9 3 1.2 10-17 6 2.4 Total 259 99.6 4.8 2.02 60 Tc Ad Table 2. (cont'd). Family Demographic n % Mean Std Dev Generations in 2 171 65.8 3 84 32.3 4 4 1 .5 Total 259 99.6 2.36 Adult Females in 1 160 61.5 2 72 27.7 3 19 7.3 4 6 2.3 Total 257 98.8 1 .5 Adult Males in 0 126 48.5 1 109 41 .9 2 19 g 7.3 3 4 1.5 Total 258 99.2 .6 In summary of the child demographic profile, the children’s ages ranged from 1-1/2 years to 4-1/2 years with a mean age of 31 months and a mode of 24 months. There were comparable numbers of boys and girls with 145 (55.8%) girls and 115 (44.2%) boys. The ethnic backgrounds of the children were almost identical to that of their primary caregiver. Of the 260 child subjects, 210 (80.8%) were black, 38 (14.6%) were Hispanic or Latino, 8 (3.1%) were white, 0 Asian-Pacific, and 3 other. See Table 3 for the complete child demographic profile. 61 Table 3. Child Demographic Profile. Child Demographic Profile n - % Mean Std Dev Sex Girls 145 55.8 Boys 115 44.2 Total 260 100.0 Age in Months 17-24 91 35.0 25-30 51 19.6 31-36 39 15.0 37-42 33 12.7 43-48 32 12.3 49-53 14 5.4 Total 260 100.0 31.35 9.66 Racial/Ethnic Background Hispanic/Latino 38 14.6 African American 210 80.8 Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0.0 vase: 8 31 Oflmr 3 12 Total 259 99.7 Procedure Assessors were hired and trained by Stoffelmayr and his research team. The initial training was an eight hour session held at Michigan State University. This training session provided an overview of the study, addressed issues of confidentiality, diversity, interview technique, and administration. Two additional six hour training sessions were held to familiarize assessors with the battery of instruments used in the study. Each assessor scheduled a 62 practice interview with a family member or friend. The field supervisor observed these in home practice interviews, and provided feedback to each assessor. At bi- monthly meetings assessors had further opportunity to discuss any concerns or problems with the instrument or interview technique. At the end of the observed, practice interview, the assessors were given a file for each participant that included contact information and the assessment materials. The assessor contacted each participant by telephone in order to schedule two home visits. The first visit required two hours and consisted of administration of Segment A of the research questionnaire and video tapping of a child/parent play interaction. This segment of the research questionnaire required the presence of the caregiver, the target child, the assessor, and the technical support staff. After the assessor had scheduled the appointment with the participant, she called Michigan State University to schedule one of the technical support staff. At this time the assessor provided the date, appointment time, meeting time, participant’s home phone number, and meeting location with directions. 63 The assessor and the technical support staff arrived at the participant’s home on the scheduled date. The following procedures then occurred: 1) Confidentiality and purpose of the study were discussed and the consent form signed. 2) The assessor read the items of the questionnaire and marked off the participant’s responses. 3) The TSS video taped a 10 minute segment of a parent/child play interaction (this was a free form play interaction with no introduction of stressful stimuli). 4) The participant received a check for $20.00 for the completed procedure. If not already done, the assessor scheduled a home visit to complete Segment B of the research questionnaire. The second visit required an hour and a half and consisted of administration of Segment B of the research questionnaire. This segment of the research questionnaire required only the presence of the assessor and the caregiver. The assessor arrived at the participant’s home on the scheduled date. The following procedure then occurred: 1) Subject was reminded of confidentiality. 64 . Iver An "16.. sad u fiAnw vv...~ - o O I no .60. () rfi rf 2) The assessor read the items of the questionnaire and marked off the participant’s responses. 3) The participant received a check for $20.00 for the completed procedure. Information was collected from the client by a trained interviewer. The interviewer completed a cover page that summarized client identifying information, such as name, address, telephone number, place of employment, and name of an alternative contact person. We have found that this information is often necessary when trying to locate clients for follow-up interviews. A nine digit identification number was assigned to clients using the last three digits of their social security number, followed by their date of birth. Each interview is kept in a file folder. The tab of the folder has the first three letters of the client's last name, and the identification number. When the files were taken to the office on campus, the cover page and consent form were removed from the file, and filed separately. Files were brought into the office approximately every two weeks. The cover page was accessed to contact the subject for any missing data. The interview, which is only identified by the identification number, was entered onto the data system, and then filed by the first 65 three letters of the client's last name. All filing cabinets were locked when not in use. If the client could not be located directly at the time of a prospective follow-up, other contacts provided by the client were used. In these cases, the interviewer self identified as a member of the Health Care Study Project, and mentioned that the client agreed to participate in an interview. No mention of City of Detroit Health Clinics or the Parenting Education and Advocacy Program was made to anyone other than the client. Instruments Several instruments were used in this study. In many cases there are multiple instruments for a given construct. Instruments are listed and described below under the construct name they represent. Family Stress Family stress "refers to demands (or conflicts among them) that tax or exceed available resources (internal and external) as appraised by the person involved" (Lazarus, 1998, p. 198). As measured in the current study, the appraisal process is unknown. Therefore, an accumulative stressor approach will be used. Difficult Life Circumstances (DLC). The Difficult Life Circumstances Scale, developed by Barnard (1989), measures the existence of chronic family problems. The DLC taps into problems concerning significant others, drug/alcohol exposure or abuse, financial strain, unemployment, emotional and/or physical abuse, childrearing, crime, and illnesses. There are a total of 28 binary items. Responses reflect the presence or absence of a particular problem. Items answered as present are summed to provide an overall score for difficult life circumstances. A score of six indicates increased risk for negative parent, child, and family outcomes. The DLC has been demonstrated to hold significant relationships with other maternal and child variables. In relation to maternal variables the DLC was positively correlated with maternal depression as measured by the Beck Inventory and was negatively correlated with social support. In relation to child variables, the DLC was positively correlated (.22) with the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist and was negatively correlated with the Bayley Mental Developmental Index (-.39), stability of secure attachment (-.23), and the Preschool Language Scale (—.44). Concerning parenting variables, the DLC was negatively correlated with both the HOME Inventory and 67 NCATS. Test-retest reliability ranges from .40 to .70. Because this scale assesses a broad range of potential problems faced by families, internal consistency is not found nor is it expected (K. E. Barnard, personal communication, April 4, 1999). The instrument used in this study consisted of 22 of the original 28 items. One item was deleted because it inquired about child abuse. The other five items omitted were redundant to items in other questionnaires. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis an additional twelve items were omitted. Further analyses were therefore based on a final scale of ten items with an average inter-item correlation of .18 and cronbach alpha of .69. Lower reliabilities were accepted on this measure due to the nature of the instrument, as discussed above. The COPE Inventory (COPE). The COPE Inventory developed by Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989), measures patterns of dispositional or situational coping styles. The Cope is a 60 item inventory that taps into fifteen domains of coping style. Thirteen of which are: Active c0ping, Planning, Suppression of competing activities, Restraint coping, Seeking social support for instrumental reasons, Seeking social support for emotional reasons, Positive reinterpretation and growth, Acceptance, 68 Turning to religion, Focus on and venting of emotions, Denial, Behavioral disengagement, and Mental disengagement. The other two subscales are exploratory and are not part of the published materials; these are Alcohol/drug use and Humor. To assess an individual's dispositional style the respondent is instructed to consider his/her usual coping response to answer each of the 60 items on a four point Likert—type scale. The items are scored 1 to 4 and represent how much an individual engages in a particular style of coping: 1equals not at all, 2 equals somewhat, 3 equals quite a bit, and 4 equals a great deal. Each scale score is computed by summing the four items for that scale. To assess the situational style rather than the dispositional style of the individual, the instructions ask the respondent to think of a recent (within the past two months) upsetting event and respond to each of the 60 items according to how the respondent coped with that particular event. Exploratory factor analysis of the situational coping strategies revealed factors comparable to those found for the dispositional coping strategies (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). Factor loadings for the subscales ranged from a high of .81 to .95 for Turning to Religion, to a low 69 of .29 to .42 for Active coping. Eight week test-retest reliability for a sample of college students ranged from .46 to .86 across the subscales. Concurrent and discriminant validity were obtained for several of the subscales. For example, Active coping and Planning subscales were found to positively correlate with Type A personality, optimism, self-esteem, and individual hardiness. Those classified as active copers scored lower in trait anxiety. As expected, the Denial and Behavior Disengagement subscales showed the opposite relationship with these variables. Interestingly, four of the subscales were significantly correlated to a measure of social desirability: Positive reinterpretation and growth (.23), Focus on and venting of emotions (-.17), Behavioral disengagement (-.20), and Alcohol/drug disengagement (-.27). Sex differences have been reported for three subscales. Women reported higher use of social support (for emotional and instrumental reasons) than did men and men reported coping strategies that involved alcohol/drug disengagement more than women (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). The instrument used in this study assessed situational coping strategies and used two rather than four items for each subscale. All items were reworded and the 70 Denial subscale was replaced by two items reflecting an isolation/sulking orientation. This yielded a total of 30 items with a possible range of 2 to 8 on each subscale and an overall range of 30 to 120. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis an additional eight items were omitted. Because of this, total score ranges decreased to 22 to 88. Further analyses were based on a final scale of 22 items with an average inter-item correlation of .30 and Cronbach alpha of .91. Family Map (FM). This instrument was designed by the MSU Adult Outcome Evaluation Team in order to get a clear picture of who is living in the home. The Family Map is in the form of a chart. This chart is to be filled in with the name, sex, and age of those persons living in the same residence as the respondent. The map instructs the respondent to place persons living in the household into one of the following categories: Respondent's Grandparents; Respondent's Parents, Step Parents, or Guardians; Respondent; Respondent's Child of Focus (target child); Respondent's Spouse or Partner; Respondent's Children and Other Children Cared for by Respondent; Other Adults (e.g., brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles); and Other Children (e.g., brothers, sisters, cousins). This graphic presentation was thought most capable of capturing the 71 complexity of resident relationships in many of the households of the study (Stoffelmayr, Reischl, Mavis, & Nijjer, 1993b) Demographics (D). The Demographic information taps into the background information of the subjects covering: 1. Personal data (sex, occupation, ethnic/racial background, language); 2. Family Information (marital status, family income, government assistance, and type of health care). There are 12 items in the demographics questionnaire. Most of these items supply categorical data. (Stoffelmayr, Reischl, Mavis, & Nijjer, 1993a). Family Cohesion Family Cohesion is the "degree of commitment, help, and support family members provide for one another" (Moos, 1986, p. 1). Family Routines are highly correlated to Family Cohesion and are arguably tied to Family Cohesion (Boyce, Jensen, James, & Peacock, 1983). "Routines are observable, repetitive behaviors which involve two or more family members and which occur with predictable regularity in the daily life of the family" (Jensen, James, Boyce & Hartnett, 1983, p. 201). Family Environment Scale (PBS). The Family Environment Scale, developed by Moos and Moos (1981), assesses family environment with respect to interpersonal 72 relationships, emphasis of personal growth, and family structure. These three domains are conceptual and as such, are not actually scored. The 10 subscales, consisting of nine true/false items each for a total of 90 items, are scored and used to describe the three domains. The 10 subscales are Cohesion, Expressiveness, Conflict, Independence, Achievement Orientation, Intellectual- Cultural Orientation, Active-Recreational Orientation, Moral Religious Emphasis, Organization, and Control. The items are scored 1 for true and 0 for false for a possible range on each subscale of 0 to 9. Based on the normative data provided in the Family Environment Scale Manual, normal families had a mean cohesion score of 6.61 and a standard deviation of 1.36. Distressed families had a mean cohesion score of 5.03 and a standard deviation of 1.98 (Moos, 1986). The internal consistency is reported to range from .64 for Independence to .79 for Cohesion. Test/retest reliability ranges from .68 for Independence to .86 for Cohesion. Intercorrelations for the subscales are around .20 indicating distinct but related constructs. Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by the instrument's ability to distinguish families with normal children and those with behavior problem children. 73 Similarly, the instrument has been useful in discriminating between normal families and those with a history of psychiatric disorders. The Cohesion subscale is significantly and positively correlated (.35) with the Family Routines Inventory, another measure of family cohesion, strength, and stability (Jensen, James, Boyce, & Hartnett, 1983). The current study utilized only the Cohesion subscale. This nine—item subscale was used to supplement other measures of family environment, including the FRI. Further analyses were based on a final scale of 9 items with an average inter-item correlation of .30 and cronbach alpha of .80. Family Hardiness Index (FHI). The Family Hardiness Index, developed by McCubbin, McCubbin, and Thompson (1987), measures the respondent's perception of the family as a unit and additionally, assesses the typical response patterns of the family to life stressors. The instrument consists of 20 items. The items are scored 0 to 3 and represent the degree to which each statement describes the respondent's family. The response choices are: 0 being definitely false of the respondent's family, 1 being mostly false of the respondent's family, 2 being mostly true of 74 the respondent's family, and 3 being definitely true of the respondent's family. An overall score for family hardiness can be obtained by reverse scoring items with a negative item-total correlation and then summing the values of all responses. The score range is 0 to 60. The FHI consists of four subscales: Co-oriented Commitment, Confidence, Challenge, and Control. Co-oriented Commitment subscale reflects the family's strengths, dependability, and degree to which members work together. The Confidence subscale reflects the family's ability to plan, appreciate one another's efforts, endure hardships, and experience life as purposeful and meaningful. The Challenge subscale measures the family's attempts to support and encourage new activities. The Control subscale measures the family's perception of being in control of things that happen or being a passive recipient of life circumstances. The internal reliability of the FHI is .82. Factor loadings for the four subscales ranged from .51 to .68 for Co-oriented Commitment, .58 to .76 for Confidence, .52 to .71 for Challenge, and .77 to .84 for Control. The FHI was found positively correlated with other commonly used measures of family: FACES II (.22), Family Time and Routines (.23), and Family Satisfaction (.20). 75 A total of 10 items, from three subscales were used in this study. Six of the Co-Oriented Commitment subscale's eight items were selected. The two items omitted had substantially lower loadings on the factor. All three of the Control External subscale's items were selected. One of the four items was used from the Confidence subscale. This item addressed the ability to cope in the face of additional problems and was particularly relevant to our sample. In this study, items are scored 1 to 4 and represent the degree to which each statement describes the respondent's family. The response choices are: 1 being definitely true of the respondent's family, 2 being mostly true of the respondent's family, 3 being mostly false of the respondent's family, and 4 being definitely false of the respondent's family. Therefore, the score range for this study is 10 to 40. An overall family hardiness score was computed as an average of all items. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis, two additional items were omitted: the one Confidence subscale item and one of the three Control External subscale items. Further analyses were based on an eight item scale with an average inter- item correlation of .37 and cronbach alpha of .82. 76 Family Routines Inventory (FRI). The Family Routines Inventory, developed by Jensen, James, Boyce, and Hartnett ,(1983), measures family routines as an indication of family strength, cohesion, predictability, and stability (Boyce, Jensen, James, & Peacock, 1983). The FRI consists of 28 items, that tap into the observable, repetitive and consistently predictable behaviors that include at least a dyad in the family. The items are scored 0 to 3 and represent the frequency of behavior, with 0 being a routine that is almost never practiced by the family, 1 being a routine carried out 1-2 times a week, 2 being a routine carried out 3-5 times a week, and 3 being an everyday routine. The authors have proposed three alternative scoring systems, however, the frequency score has been recommended as preferable due to its increased test/retest reliability (.79 as compared to .74 and .75). This scoring system results in a possible range of O to 84. Concurrent validity was established using four subscales from the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1981). The FRI held statistically significant correlations at the .001 level with each of the four FES subscales: Cohesion (.35), Organization (.36), Control (.20), and Conflict (-.18). The FRI was also found to be significantly correlated with two demographic variables, namely income 77 (-.14) and age of oldest child (.27). The authors contend that these demographic relationships are explained by a family's typical developmental trend. As parents and their children age, there is typically an increase in family income. As children age, parents tend to decrease the level of routinization in attempt to respect the adolescent's emerging autonomy. These developmental trends could account for the correlation between family routines, age of oldest child, and income. This study utilized 19 of the 28 FRI items. Three items were excluded because they were applicable to older. children. For example, "Children do their homework at the same time each day or night during the week." Four items were eliminated because they were specific to working parents and over 1/2 of our subjects were unemployed. Two other items were excluded due to redundancy with other measures in the study. In this study, items are scored 1 to 4 and represent the frequency of behavior, with 1 being a routine that is practiced less than weekly by the family, 2 being a routine carried out 1-2 times a week, 3 being a routine carried out 3-5 times a week, and 4 being an everyday routine. For this study the possible range of FRI scores is 19 to 76. 78 Factor anlaysis suggested dropping an additional seven items. This resulted in a 12 item scale with an average inter-item correlation of .21 and cronbach alpha of .76. Upon further qualitative analysis it seemed that family routines may be tapping into a construct other than Family Cohesion as measured by the Family Hardiness Index and the Family Environment Scale. For this reason, Family Routines was omitted as an indicator of Family Cohesion. Further analyses, therefore, do not include this instrument. Parent-Child Social Interaction Parent—Child Social Interaction is "an active mutual/reciprocal exchange. Social interaction may involve aspects of the environment, but must include overt behavior directed to the dyad partner by each dyad member." Coded behaviors include: response contingency, directiveness, intrusiveness, facilitation, initiation, participation, signal clarity, intentional communicative acts, and theme continuity (Baird, Haas, McCormick, Carruth, & Turner, 1992, p. 550). Parent Infant Social Interaction Code (PISIC). The Parent Infant social Interaction Code, developed by Baird, Haas, McCormick, Carruth, and Turner (1992), was designed to measure infant parent social interaction through four parent variables (response contingency, facilitation, 79 directiveness, and intrusiveness), four infant variables (signal clarity, initiation, intentional communicative acts, and participation), and one dyadic variable (theme continuity). Each caregiver/child dyad is instructed to play as they normally would when not feeding, changing, or bathing the child. A standard set of toys is provided to the dyad but it is not required that they be used. Ten minutes of play is video recorded with time lapse in seconds recorded on the tape for coding purposes. An additional five minutes of clean up time was recorded but is not part of the Parent Infant Social Interaction Code requirement. The first 5 minutes of play is considered warm up, the next five minutes is viewed and coded in 15 second segments. Each of the nine variables listed above is coded as present or absent during each 15-second interval. Although normative data are not available, supportive literature lends insight into the interpretation of the presence or absence of individual variables and more importantly, the unique combinations and co-occurrences of variables can be assessed. A total of six coders were trained during 40 hours of group sessions. Recommended training is a total of 12 hours, however, only one coder was able to achieve 80% 80 reliability on each construct with such minimal training. We proceeded to train the remaining coders until each of the six coders established 80% reliability on each construct. A sequence of training, testing, and retraining was followed until we were able to establish the requisite reliability on each construct. The third test provided adequate results, with all coders achieving a minimum of 80% agreement on each of the nine constructs. Across the three tests, coders obtained the following average percent of exact agreement with the standard training tape for presence or absence of each behavioral construct: parent response contingency (97%), faCilitation (73%), directiveness (89%), intrusiveness (97%), signal clarity (95%), initiation (93%), intentional communicative acts (79%), participation (82%), and theme continuity (85%). Once we began the coding process, coders were retested for reliability after every 20 interviews coded. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis, the nine behaviors were divided into four constructs (joint action, guidance, exchange and intrusion). Child participation and theme continuity, together, defined joint action. Guidance was comprised of parent facilatation and parent directiveness. Exchange was measured by parent response contingency, child initiation and intentional communicative 81 acts. Parental intrusive behaviors were the only indicator on the fourth construct. Parental Discipline Parental discipline is defined as actions the primary caregiver takes to modify the child's inappropriate behavior and consistency of enforcement. Types of discipline range from ignoring the situation to hitting the child. Consistency assesses the parent's level of disciplinary follow through (Patterson, 1986; Power, 1993). Parenting Dimensions Inventory (PDI). The Parenting Dimensions Inventory, developed by Slater and Power (1987), measures parenting attitudes and behaviors. The PDI taps into three global dimensions of parenting (Support, Control, and Structure). Each of the three parenting dimensions consists of three subscales. Support is measured by the Nurturance, Sensitivity, and Non-Restrictive Attitude subscales. Control is measured by the Type of Control, Amount of Control, and Maturity Demands subscales. Structure is measured by the Involvement, Consistency, and Organization subscales. Slater and Power (1987) found discriminant validity for the PDI in several different studies. The PDI was shown to predict parent ratings of child behavior problems and child social competence. 82 This study utilized questions from two subscales, Consistency and Control. Five items are used from the Consistency subscale. Responses are captured on a four point Likert—type scale ranging from 1, not at all like me to 4, a lot like me, for a possible score range of 5 to 20. Four of the six hypothetical situations involving misbehavior on the part of the child are used from the Control subscale. Below each hypothetical situation is a list of possible parent disciplinary responses ranging from "Let the situation go" to "Spanking or hitting." On the original scale these items measured five dimensions, physical punishment, material/Social consequences, reasoning, scolding, and reminding. In the current study these five dimensions are collapsed to define three primary types of discipline: physical, behavioral, and verbal. The parent is asked to rate how likely they are to engage in each disciplinary action in response to the scenario. Response items range from 1 to 4, with 1 being a very unlikely parental response and 4 being a very likely parental response. The score for each dimension of control is computed by averaging the responses to corresponding items across the four scenarios. Using this particular scoring method, Longano (1990) found the following internal consistency for disciplinary 83 responses: physical punishment (.83), material/social consequences (.82), reasoning (.69), scolding (.89), and reminding (.83). In a sample of 5 to 10 year old children, McGrath, Zook, and Weber-Roehl (1991) found that low maternal PDI scores on the material/social consequences were related to higher levels of child prosocial behavior. Furthermore, cluster analysis of the type of control subscale of the PDI revealed constructs that closely resembled Baumrind's (1971) authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles (Power, Kobayashi-Winata, & Kelley, 1991). Confirmatory factor analysis resulted in omitting items from the Control Subscales while retaining all items from the Consistency subscale. From the Control subscale, both Verbal and Physical Discipline dimensions were impacted. From the Verbal subscale, two items were omitted due to cross loading and three items were omitted due to weak inter-item correlation. Only one item was omitted from the Physical Discipline subscale as a result of weak inter- item correlation. Further analyses used a seven item scale for Verbal Discipline, eight item scale for Behavioral Discipline, and seven item scale for Physical Discipline with average inter—item correlations of .34, .40, and .40 and Cronbach alphas of .78, .84, and .82 respectively. All 84 five items were retained for the Consistency subscale with an inter-item correlation of .45 and Cronbach alpha of .77. Child Rearing Practices Report (CRPR). The Child Rearing Practices report was originally developed by Block (1965), as a 91 item instrument used to assess parental attitudes and behaviors regarding child rearing. In 1982, Rickel and Biasatti validated a 40 item version from the original 91 items. Responses are recorded on a six point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1, not at all like me to 6, a lot like me. This modification taps into two domains, Restrictiveness (22 items) and Nurturance (18 items), internal reliabilities are .85 and .84 respectively. Jones, Rickel, and Smith (1980) found the CRPR subscales to differentially relate to types of social problem solving in a sample of preschool children. Namely, more restrictive child rearing practices were correlated with child social problem solving strategies involving evasive themes. Whereas, less restrictive child rearing practices were related to child social problem solving strategies involving personal appeals to negotiate with the parent. Children of mothers who used nuturing child rearing practices were less likely to rely on authority figures to resolve peer dilemmas. 85 In the prediction of CRPR scores from mother personality factors, Rickel, Williams and Loigman (1988) found state anxiety, trait anxiety, and depression to be a highly correlated set of factors that were negatively related to mother's nurturance (R = .43) and positively related to mother's restrictiveness (R = .31). These authors also found several demographic variables significantly correlated with mother's use of restrictive child rearing practices. Black mothers were significantly more likely to use restrictive child rearing practices (- .32), as were Catholic mothers (.30), single mothers (.22), mothers with less education (-.27), and mothers with lower income (-.25). This study used 6 of the 18 Nurturance subscale items. Responses were recorded on a four point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1, not at all like me to 4, a lot like me, for a possible score range of 6 to 24. Confirmatory factor analysis resulted in retaining all six items from the Nurturance subscale with an average inter- item correlation of .28 and Cronbach alpha of .70. Child Temperament Temperament is defined as a genetically predisposed set of traits that emerge within the first year and govern how an individual behaves. Temperament traits are highly stable across development (Buss & Plomin, 1984; Thomas & 86 Chess, 1977) but are mutable and modifiable and involve reciprocal processes (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Traits measured are: sociability, emotionality, activity, attention span/persistence, reaction to foods, and soothability. The Colorado Childhood Temperament Inventory (CCTI). The Colorado Childhood Temperament Inventory is a merger of items from the New York Longitudinal Study (NYLS) and Buss and Plomin's (1975) temperament theory of personality (EASI). Temperament items that were supported by factor analysis were combined to compose the six factors (Sociability, Emotionality, Activity, Attention span/persistence, Reaction to foods, and Soothability) of the CCTI (Rowe & Plomin, 1977). Emotionality and Activity are taken primarily from the EASI. Attention span/persistence and Soothability were taken primarily from the NYLS. The six scales are independent except for the relationship between Emotionality and Soothability. The CCTI is a parental rating instrument measuring temperament for children between 1-6 years of age. There are five items for each factor. The items on the questionnaire are listed with both the behavior and the response choice on the same line to eliminate confusion. The items are scored 1 to 5 and represent the degree to 87 which the parent feels the behavior represents their child. The parent rates an item a 1 if their child is "not at all" like the behavior described in that item. The parent rates an item a 5 if their child is "a lot" like the behavior described in the item. Findings support that girls and boys, as well as younger and older children, have similar temperament ratings. The CCTI has considerable internal consistency as well as moderately high test-retest reliabilities for all factors except Soothability. Confirmatory factor analysis resulted in omitting items from the Sociability, Activity, and Attention Span subscales while retaining all items from the Emotionality and Soothability subscales. From the Sociability subscale, one item was omitted due to cross loading on the Activity subscale. Two items were omitted from the Activity subscale due to cross loading on the Sociability subscale. One weak item was omitted from the Attention Span subscale. Further analyses used a four item scale for Sociability, five item scale for Emotionality, three item scale for Activity, three item scale for Attention Span and a five item scale for Soothability with average inter-item correlations of .38, .51, .44, .48, and .50 and Cronbach alphas of .71, .84, .71, .74, and .83 respectively. 88 Child Aggression Child Aggression is defined as actions that involve the intention to harm or injure (Berkowitz, 1981) other living beings (Baron & Richardson, 1994). As measured by the CBCL—2/3 Aggressive Behavior subscale, aggression includes affective behavior (e.g., easily frustrated, jealous, angry moods). The CBCL-2/3 Destructive Behavior subscale, includes actions against property (Achenbach, 1992). The Child Behavior Checklist/2-3 (CBCL/2-3). The Child Behavior Checklist/2—3 was designed for applied and research purposes. Its purpose is to provide a more differentiated assessment of toddlers' behavioral and emotional functioning than was previously available. It was designed to assess children from 2 to 3 years of age, but can be extended to 1.5 to 3.5 years of age (T. M. Achenbach, personal communication, November 17, 1997). The items on the questionnaire are listed with both the behavior and the response choice on the same line to eliminate confusion. The items are scored 0 to 2 and represent the frequency of behavior, with 0 being not true of the child's behavior, 1 being sometimes true of the child's behavior, and 2 being very true of the child's behavior. The total problem score provides the global index 89 of the child's problems. There are two broad bands, Internalizing and Externalizing behaviors that combine with all other items (except items 51 and 79) to create the total problem score. The Internalizing behaviors are those that the child directs inward, toward the self. Adding the scores for the subscales Anxious/Depressed and Withdrawn derives the Internalizing score. The Externalizing behaviors are those that the child directs outward, away from the self. The subscales summed for the Externalizing score are Aggression and Destructive Behavior. Sleep Problems and Somatic Problems are on neither the Internalizing or Externalizing bands. An interviewer can fill out the instrument or it can be self administered, provided the subjects have at least a 5fl‘grade reading level. Male, female, and combined norms are computed for each subscale. Test-retest reliability is .85 and inter-parent agreement is .63. Most of the items on the questionnaire have the ability to discriminate significantly between clinic referred and non-referred children (Achenbach, 1992). Confirmatory factor analysis suggested omitting items from the Aggressiveness and the Destructiveness subscales due to cross loading on one another. However, these two items are combined to create the externalizing score. Since 90 the overall externalizing score was the primary interest of this study, all items were retained on the Aggressiveness and Destructiveness subscales despite crosslaoding on each other. Individually the Aggressiveness subscale consisted of 15 items with an average inter-item correlation of .21 and Cronbach alpha of .80 and the Destructiveness subscale consisted of 11 items with an average inter-item correlation of .14 and cronbach alpha of .64. Further analyses used the externalizing score. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS). The Vineland Adaptive Scale is a revision of the Vineland Social Maturity Scale (Sparrow, Balla, & Ciccheti, 1984). The VABS correlates .55 with the original Vineland. It assesses social competence of handicapped and non-handicapped children from birth to 19 years of age. The respondent must be an adult who is familiar with the activities of the subject. Because the VABS relies on report, rather than observation, familiarity of the subject is essential. To administer the report, the administrator must be trained in formal interview techniques. There are three different versions of the VABS: Survey Form, Expanded Form, and the Classroom Edition. The Survey Form, consisting of 297 items, is the form used in the current study. 91 Four domains of behavior are assessed: Communication, Daily Living Skills, Socialization, and Motor Development. Each of the four domains is broken into relevant subdomains. Communication is comprised of Perceptive, Expressive, and Written subdomains. Daily Living Skills is comprised of Personal, Domestic, and Community subdomains. The Socialization domain is comprised of Interpersonal Relationships, Play and Leisure Time, and Coping Skills. Motor Development is divided into Gross and Fine Motor Skills. There is also an index for Maladaptive Behavior, which was not utilized as it pertains to children of at least 5 years of age, whereas the study's sample consists of children between 2 and 4 years of age. Because the VABS items are listed in developmental order, the administrator must establish a basal score of the highest seven consecutive items scored 2, and a ceiling of the lowest seven consecutive items scored 0. The standardization of the VABS was based on a representative sample of 3000 individuals. Norms are provided for ages 0 to 19 years and are stratified for race, sex, ethnicity, geographic region, community size, and parent education. Other studies have found a significant correlation between the Adaptive Behavior Composite of the VABS and the Global standard scores of the 92 , r a-U‘. “5'! ans , a vuu —. 1"” toy o 0.. : I ru- v-n IT or, (7 A O. () (f H (1 (D Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). The correlation was especially high for the Communication Domain of the VABS at .52. The VABS has also been demonstrated to be significantly correlated to the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT—R), with correlations ranging from .12 on the Daily Living Skills Domain to .37 on the Communication Domain. The Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory (ASBI). The Adaptive Social behavior Inventory, developed by Hogan, Scott, and Bauer (1992), measures social competence in preterm three-year olds. The ASBI taps into children's social competence but should not be considered the inverse of behavior problems. There are a total of 30 items, each consisting of eight words or less. The items are scored 1 to 3 and represent the frequency of behavior, with 1 being rarely true of the child's behavior, 2 being sometimes true of the child's behavior, and 3 being almost always true of the child's behavior. The ASBI consists of 3 subscales: Express, Comply, and Disrupt. Express reflects initiating social behaviors and emotionally expressive qualities. Comply reflects responsive and cooperative behaviors. The sum of these two subscales yields the total prosocial behavior score. Disrupt measures slightly negative emotional tone, but this may also include some normative 93 (I) . ‘sti Lu. u». ‘r V! A! K)! (I) (I) (7' t“) ("f (“g V‘\ IE ["1 behavior for many young children. Reliabilities for subscales Express, Comply, and Disrupt are .79, .79, and .71 respectively. Disrupt is less internally consistent than the other subscales due to the low number of items. However, item loadings for this factor are equivalent to those in the other two subscales. The ASBI subscales were found to differentially relate to intelligence and behavior problems. The ASBI is correlated with the Stanford Binet IQ Score. Among the ASBI and IQ score correlations, the Express subscale held a significantly stronger correlation (.46) than did the other subscales. Compliance was inversely and more strongly (- .61) related to the CBCL-2/3 externalizing score than were the other two subscales. Mean differences are noted for sex, with boys scoring lower on the Comply subscale than girls. The scale construction began as a screening for pre- term 36 month old infants, but has since been validated for use with 3 to 5 year old, ethnically diverse children (Greenfield, Wasserstein, Gold, & Jorden, 1997). Confirmatory factor analysis suggested omitting only one item from the Express subscale due to weak inter—item correlation. All other items on other subscales were retained. Further analyses used a twelve item subscale for Express, ten item subscale for Comply, and seven item 94 subscale for Disrupt with average inter-item correlations of .23, .32, and .20 and Cronbach alphas of .78, .82, and .63 respectively. Graphical presentation of the constructs and the respective instruments used to measure them summarizes the information discussed above (see Figure 5). —-—-—> Parent-Child PISIC Social Interaction Family Child Cohesion b Aggression Child Temperament CRPR Parental CBCL PDI ¢ Discipline ASBI . ‘ VABS 1 __.J Figure 5. Measurement Model for Path Variables. 95 Chapter 4 Results Collapsing Data Initial data were collected from three different groups. The total sample consisted of families who participated in parenting workshops and counseling services provided through the Detroit Health Department Program, Detroit Family Program (DFP; clinic based experimental group); families who participated in a family outreach program, Para-professional Outreach Program (PPOP; home based experimental group); and families who did not participate in either of the above programs (control group). It was first necessary to determine if collapsing the groups into one sample would bias the data. Discriminant analysis was conducted on the total sample to determine if the groups differed on any variables in a significant way. Results of the discriminant analysis indicated that the groups could not be significantly distinguished by any variable other than group membership [eigenvalues = .26 and .12 for functions 1 and 2 respectively; Wilk's lambda = .71 and .89, with p = .29 and p = .86 for functions 1 through 2 and 2 respectively]. Therefore, the data were collapsed into one group. 96 ‘» ~.\ (I) (t Data Estimation Precautionary steps during and immediately following data collection were taken to ensure a complete data set. If data were found missing, follow—up phone calls were made to gather the missing data. Even with these precautions, some data points (.136%) were missing at the time of analysis. If an item was found to be missing data, it was typically only for one case and at the most three. In these instances, linear trend at a point analyses were conducted to estimate the missing points. Descriptive Analysis Means and standard deviations were calculated for all scaled scores used in the present study (see Table 4). Because there is controversy surrounding the age at which aggression emerges, a t-test of the means was conducted to determine the presence or absence of sex differences in the current sample. Results indicated that the boys (M = 14.31, SD = 8.4) were significantly more aggressive than the girls (M = 12.68, SD = 7.3), 3(258) = -1.69, E = .046. 97 Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations of Scaled Scores variable/Label N Min Max Mean SD Skew Kurt A01FAM7 Age of mother 260 17 45 26. 47 6.01 0. 964 0.680 CElCHILR Number of children in household 260 11 .61 .684 .637 CElADULT Number of adults in household 260 .11 .763 .407 RA02I3AD Binary Employment 260 .42 .345 .895 AOZIIBDE Family's annual income 260 .43 .136 .361 DSINGLE Binary never married 260 .58 .324 .906 ZPUBAID Binary public aid 260 .54 .158 .983 CE4AGRES Aggressive Behavior 260 28 .22 .768 .432 CE4DESTR Destructive Behavior 260 14 .18 .094 .553 CE4EXT Externalizing 260 39 13. 40 .884 .678 CE4OTH Other problems 260 27 .02 .080 .527 MCE4TPS Total Problem Score 260 84 27. 80 16.46 .116 .249 CESSOCIA Sociability 260 .91 .547 .369 CESEMOTI Emotionality 260 .67 .249 .919 Table 4. (cont'd). variable/Label Min Mean SD Skew Kurt CESACTIV Activity 260 .72 0.55 -2.531 7.043 CESATTEN Attensption span- persistence 260 .80 .449 .648 CESSOOTH Soothability 260 .96 .693 .380 CE6EXPRE Express 260 .72 .329 1.757 CE6COMPL Comply 260 .43 .466 .023 CE6DISRU Disrupt 260 .66 0.522 .198 A07COMMS Communication Standard Score 260 54 160 106. 16.23 .106 0.482 A07DLSST Daily Living Skills Standard Score 260 58 160 110. 73 15.17 .219 0.343 A07SOCIS Socialization Standard Score 260 55 160 109. 62 15.54 0.128 1.585 A07MOTSS Motor Skills Standard Score 260 57 160 110. 42 16. .379 0.236 A07ABSSS Adaptive Behavior Composite Standard Score 260 57 160 112. 55 16.44 .313 0.424 CE8JTACT Joint Activity 260 16 4O 29. 39 .324 .650 CE8GUIDE Guidance 260 12 4O 29. 00 .190 .148 99 Table 4. (cont'd). Variable/Label N Min Max Mean SD Skew Kurt CE8EXCHA Exchange 260 4 58 36.78 '11.83 -0.589 -0.210 CE8INTRU Intrusive 260 C) 20 1.64 2.79 3.994 20.389 CEllFHRE Family Hardiness 260 1 4 3.49 0.49 —1.212 1.751 CElZVERB Verbal Discipline 260 2 4 3.86 0.27 -2.638 7.257 CElZBEHA Behavioral Discipline 260 1 4 2.43 0.75 0.353 -0.643 CElZPHYS Physical Discipline 260 1 4 1.93 0.65 0.590 0.007 CE13NURT Nurturing child rearing practices 260 3 4 3.85 0.25 -2.072 4.477 CE13CON Disciplinary Consistency 260 1 4 3.05 0.72 -O.552 -0.027 CE14FRRE Family Routines 260 18 48 38.48 5.67 -0.324 -0.101 CElSFAME Family Environment 260 1 9 8.04 1.65 -2.167 4.459 CE16TOTC Total Cope 260 1 4 2.07 0.57 0.439 —O.609 CE17DLCT Difficult Life Circumstances 260 0 8 0.96 1.42 1J857 4.021 100 Correlations In order to examine the relationships between variables, Pearson product-moment coefficients were calculated for all measures used in the study (see Appendix B). For the most part, the correlation matrix supported the hypothesized relationships between variables. Family stress was positively related to problematic child behaviors and was negatively related to adaptive child behaviors. Further more, family stress was negatively related to family cohesion and positively related to parental disciplinary practices. However, family stress was not related to parent-child social interaction. Family cohesion was negatively related to child externalizing behavior. One measure of family cohesion was positively related to adaptive child behaviors but the other two were not. Parental disciplinary practices were related to child aggressive behavior and child temperament as hypothesized. It is interesting to note that of parental disciplinary measures, parental consistency held the strongest correlation with all measures of child temperament. Parent-child social interaction was not correlated with child temperament, nor with negative child behaviors, 101 but it did show a significant positive correlation with adaptive child behaviors. It is interesting to note that younger mothers were more likely to be single, unemployed, and dependent upon public assistance. Although these women were more likely to be single, they were more likely to reside in households with more adults than were their older counterparts. Younger women were also more likely to reside in multi- generation households. Structural Equation Modeling The hypothesis that the relationship between parental stress and child aggression is mediated or moderated by family cohesion and mediated by parent-child social interaction, parent disciplinary practices, and child temperament was tested by comparing three structural equation models. Model 1 tested the hypothesized direct and indirect effects of family stress on child aggression without taking family cohesion into consideration. Model 2 tested the hypothesized indirect effects of family stress on child aggression taking family cohesion into consideration. Model 3 tested the hypothesized indirect and direct effects of family stress on child aggression taking family cohesion into consideration. 102 Original Models Amos 4 (Arbuckle & Wothe, 1999) was used to obtain generalized least squares estimates of the model coefficients. All three models represented a good fit to the data. Although the Chi-Square [x2 (df = 97, g = 260) = 129.50, p = .015] was significant for model 1, the GFI (.94) and the CFI (.84) were large and the RMSEA (.04) was small. Additionally, the data fit the rule of thumb that an acceptable fit exists if two times the degrees of freedom exceeds the x2[df = 97 x 2 = 194,- 194 > 129.50]. Taken together, the fit indices provide evidence for an adequate fit between the model and the data. The standardized path coefficients for model 1 are presented in Figure 6. Relationships in the model are all in the expected direction but only three paths were found significant. Family stress indirectly affected child aggressive behaviors. Increased family stress resulted in decreased use of positive parenting practices (standardized coefficient = -.71). Positive parenting practices predicted more adaptive child temperament (standardized coefficient = .75). In turn, adaptive child temperament predicted lower levels of aggressive behavior (standardized coefficient = -.47). The results indicate that parental discipline and 103 child temperament are potential buffers of family stress effects on child aggression. Parent-Child Social Interaction Child Temperament Parental Discipline ‘Significantpath Figure 6. Standardized Path Coefficients of Model 1. Model 2 also resulted in a significant Chi-Square [x2(df = 127, g = 260) = 169.76, B = .007] However, the GFI (.93) and the CPI (.83) were large and the RMSEA (.04) was small. Additionally, two times the degrees of freedom exceeded the x2[df = 127 x 2 = 254; 254 > 169.76]. Therefore, model 2 also represents an adequate fit to the data. The standardized path coefficients for model 2 are presented in Figure 7. The same three paths, as found 104 significant in model 1 were found significant in model 2. In addition, the path from family stress to family cohesion was significant. Family stress indirectly affected child aggressive behaviors. Increased family stress resulted in decreased use of positive parenting practices (standardized coefficient = -.88). Positive parenting practices predicted more adaptive child temperament (standardized coefficient = .71). In turn, adaptive child temperament predicted lower levels of aggressive behavior (standardized coefficient = —.47). The results indicate that parental discipline and child temperament are potential buffers of family stress effects on child aggression. Family Stress also predicted a decrease in family cohesion (standardized coefficient = -.67). 105 Parent—Child Social Interaction _ 02 -.ll Family Family - 05 Child Stress Cohesion Aggression -.01 -.47"' Child Temperament .00 -.71 "' Parental Discipline *Significant path Figure 7. Standardized Path Coefficients of Model 2. Results of model 3 were almost identical to those of model 2. A significant Chi-Square [x2(df = 126, N = 260) = 169.70, p = .006] was present, yet other evidence supported acceptance of the model. Namely, a large GFI (.93) and CFI (.82); a small RMSEA (.04); and two times the degrees of freedom exceeded the )8- [df = 126 x 2 = 252,- 252 > 169.70]. The standardized path coefficients for model 3 are presented in Figure 8. The same four paths, as found significant in model 2 were found significant in model 3. Family stress indirectly affected child aggressive behaviors. Increased family stress resulted in decreased 106 use of positive parenting practices (standardized coefficient = -.88). Positive parenting practices predicted more adaptive child temperament (standardized coefficient = .72). In turn, adaptive child temperament predicted lower levels of aggressive behavior (standardized coefficient = -.49). The results indicate that parental discipline and child temperament are potential buffers of family stress effects on child aggression. Family Stress also predicted a decrease in family cohesion (standardized coefficient = -.67). Parent-Child 1 Social Interaction _ 01 -.l . ' Family -.67"' Cohesion Family Stress . 12 Child Temperament -.88"' . 12 Parental Discipline ‘Significant path Figure 8. Standardized Path Coefficients of Model 3. 107 In order to determine the best fitting model, Chi- Square comparisons were conducted between the two hierarchically related models (i.e., models 2 and 3). Comparison of models 2 and 3, the two models that included the family cohesion construct, showed that both models fit the data equally well [Ax2(260; 1) = .065, n.s.]. Although statistical comparisons of models 1 and 3 and models 1 and 2 are not possible, model 1 was chosen as the best fitting model. Model 1 omitted the family cohesion construct which did not directly or indirectly predict child aggression in either model 2 or 3. In addition to being the most parsimonious model, all indices of fit for model 1 were the same or better than the fit indices for models 2 and 3. Alternate Models The importance of family cohesion is widely reported in the child development literature. The initially hypothesized models failed to identify family cohesion as a mediator of the deleterious affects of family stress. Post hoc analyses were conducted in an attempt to understand why family cohesion did not mediate the relationship between family stress and child aggression. Alternate model 1 consisted of only the significant paths from the original model 1. This model resulted in a significant Chi-Square [x2 (df = 74, N = 260) = 129.68, p = .000] However, the GFI 108 (.93) was large and the CFI (.68) was marginally acceptable and the RMSEA (.05) was also acceptable. Additionally, two times the degrees of freedom exceeded the x2[df = 74 x 2 = 148; 148 > 129.68]. Therefore, this model represents an adequate fit to the data. The standardized path coefficients for alternate model 1 are presented in Figure 9. Relationships in the model are all in the expected direction and all were found to be statistically significant. Family stress directly effects family cohesion (standardized coefficient = —.66) and parental disciplinary practices (standardized coefficient = -.88). Positive parenting practices predicted more adaptive child temperament (standardized coefficient = .73). In turn, adaptive child temperament predicted lower levels of aggressive behavior (standardized coefficient = —.48). The results indicate that parental discipline and child temperament are potential buffers of family stress effects on child aggression. Family cohesion is not predictive of anything in this model. Given the low CFI and this model's inability to articulate the role of family cohesion in predicting child aggression, additional exploration was conducted. 109 Parental Discipline Family Stress Family Cohesion Child Aggression Child Temperament *Signif'lcant path Figure 9. Standardized Path Coefficients of Alternate Model 1. Consistent with the original hypotheses of family cohesion as a mediator or moderator, alternate models 2-4 were designed to test family cohesion as a mediator or moderator of the effects of family stress on parental discipline. Alternate model 2 tested the direct effects of family stress on parental discipline without taking family cohesion into consideration. Alternate model 3 tested the indirect effects of family stress on parental discipline taking family cohesion into consideration. Alternate model 4 tested the indirect and direct effects of family stress 110 on parental discipline taking family cohesion into consideration. All three models represented an acceptable fit to the data. Although the Chi-Square [x2 (df = 52, g = 260) = 92.70, p = .000] was significant for alternate model 2, the GFI (.94) was large and the CFI (.68) and RMSEA (.055) were marginally acceptable. Additionally, the data fit the rule of thumb that an acceptable fit exists if two times the degrees of freedom exceeds the x2[df = 52 x 2 = 104; 104 > 92.70]. Taken together, the fit indices provide evidence for an adequate fit between the model and the data. The standardized path coefficients for alternate model 2 are presented in Figure 10. Relationships in the model are all in the expected direction and all paths were found significant. Family stress indirectly affected child aggressive behaviors. Increased family stress resulted in decreased use of positive parenting practices (standardized coefficient = -.70). Positive parenting practices predicted more adaptive child temperament (standardized coefficient = .77). In turn, adaptive child temperament predicted lower levels of aggressive behavior (standardized coefficient = -.47). The results indicate that parental discipline and child temperament are potential buffers of family stress effects on child aggression. 111 Family Stress Parental Child Discipline Temperamen ‘Signiflcant path Figure 10. Standardized Path Coefficients of Alternate Model 2. Alternate model 3 also resulted in a significant Chi- Square [x7- (df = 74, y = 260) = 132.16, p_ = .000] However, the GFI (.93) was large and the CFI (.66) and RMSEA (.055) were marginally acceptable. Additionally, two times the degrees of freedom exceeded the x2[df = 74 x 2 = 148; 148 > 132.16]. Therefore, alternate model 3 also represents an adequate fit to the data. The standardized path coefficients for alternate model 3 are presented in Figure 11; all paths were found significant. The effects of family stress on child aggression were mediated by family cohesion, parental 112 discipline, and child temperament. Increased family stress resulted in decreased family cohesion (standardized coefficient = -.56). Decreased family cohesion predicted a decrease in the use of positive parental disciplinary practices (standardized coefficient = .79). Use of negative parental disciplinary practices predicted less adaptive child temperament (standardized coefficient = .68). In turn, less adaptive child temperament predicted higher levels of aggressive behavior (standardized coefficient = —.49). The results indicate that family cohesion, parental discipline and child temperament are potential buffers of family stress effects on child aggression. Parental Discipline 68" Child ' Aggression -.49" Child Temperament .79" Family Cohesion ‘Significant path Figure 11. Standardized Path Coefficients of Alternate Model 3. 113 Alternate model 4 also resulted in a significant Chi- Square [x2 (df = 73, g = 260) = 121.92, E = .000] However, the GFI (.93) was large and the CFI (.72) and RMSEA (.051) were marginally acceptable. Additionally, two times the degrees of freedom exceeded the x2[df = 73 x 2 = 146; 146 > 121.92]. Therefore, alternate model 4 also represents an adequate fit to the data. The standardized path coefficients for alternate model 4 are presented in Figure 12; all paths were found significant. The effects of family stress on child aggression were mediated by family cohesion, parental discipline, and child temperament. Increased family stress resulted in decreased family cohesion (standardized coefficient = —.47). Decreased family cohesion predicted a decrease in the use of positive parental disciplinary practices (standardized coefficient = .46). Use of negative parental disciplinary practices predicted less adaptive child temperament (standardized coefficient = .73). In turn, less adaptive child temperament predicted higher levels of aggressive behavior (standardized coefficient = —.50). Family stress was also found to have a direct effect on parental disciplinary practices. Namely, that increased stress predicted a decrease in positive parental discipline 114 (standardized coefficient = -.46). The results indicate that family cohesion, parental discipline and child temperament are potential buffers of family stress effects on child aggression. Although the effects of family stress on parental discipline are mediated by family cohesion, there is still a significant direct effect of family stress on parental discipline. Parental Discipline Family Cohesion Temperament ‘Significant path Figure 12. Standardized Path Coefficients of Alternate Model 4. In order to determine which of the three models best fit the data, Chi-Square comparisons were conducted between the two hierarchically related models (i.e., alternate models 3 and 4). Comparison of models 3 and 4, the two 115 models that included the family cohesion construct, demonstrated a significantly better fit between alternate model 4 and the data [Ax2(260; 1) = 10.24, E < .005]. Although statistical comparisons of szis not possible for alternate models 2 and 4, all fit indices supported model 4 as the best fit to the data. To further expand upon alternate model 4, alternate models 5-7 were designed to test the effects of child temperament on family stress. The three models were designed like alternate models 2-4, with the addition of a path from child temperament to family stress. Alternate model 5 tested the direct effects of family stress on parental discipline without taking family cohesion into consideration. Alternate model 6 tested the indirect effects of family stress on parental discipline taking family cohesion into consideration. Alternate model 7 tested the indirect and direct effects of family stress on parental discipline taking family cohesion into consideration. All three models included a test of the direct effect of child temperament on family stress. All three models represented an acceptable fit to the data. Although the Chi-Square [x2(df = 51, g = 260) = 89.31, p = .000] was significant for alternate model 5, the 116 GFI (.94) was large and the CFI (.70) and RMSEA (.05) were marginally acceptable. Additionally, the data fit the rule of thumb that an acceptable fit exists if two times the degrees of freedom exceeds the x2[df = 51 x 2 = 102; 102 > 89.31]. Taken together, the fit indices provide evidence for an adequate fit between the model and the data. Alternate model 6 also resulted in a significant Chi- Square [x2(df = 73, g = 260) = 120.46, B = .000] However, the GFI (.93) was large and the CFI (.73) and RMSEA (.05) were marginally acceptable. Additionally, two times the degrees of freedom exceeded the x2[df = 73 x 2 = 146; 146 > 120.46]. Therefore, alternate model 6 also represents an adequate fit to the data. Although alternate model 7 resulted in a significant Chi-Square [12(df = 72, g = 260) = 117.64, B = .001], the GFI (.94) was large and the CFI (.74) and RMSEA (.049) were acceptable. Additionally, two times the degrees of freedom exceeded the x2[df = 72 x 2 = 144; 144 > 117.64]. Therefore, alternate model 7 represents an adequate fit to the data. In order to determine which of the three models best fit the data, Chi-Square comparisons were conducted between the two hierarchically related models (i.e., alternate 117 models 6 and 7). Comparison of models 6 and 7, the two models that included the family cohesion construct, demonstrated a significantly better fit between alternate model 7 and the data [M (260; 1) = 2.82, E < .010]. Although statistical comparisons of szis not possible for alternate models 5 and 7, all fit indices supported model 7 as the best fit to the data. Therefore, this series of models, like alternate models 2-4 demonstrated that family cohesion does play a significant role in mediating the effects of family stress on child aggression. Additionally, this series of models demonstrated that child temperament directly impacts family stress. The standardized path coefficients for alternate model 7 are presented in Figure 13. All paths were found significant except the direct effect of family stress on child discipline. 118 54:: Parental Discipline Family Cohesion a Child -.25 .53 -.50' "43‘ Child - Temperament -.30"' Family Stress ’Significant path Figure 13. Standardized Path Coefficients of Alternate Model 7 Chi-square comparison of the two best alternate models (i.e., alternate models 4 and 7), demonstrated a significantly better fit between alternate model 7 and the data [Ax2(260; 1) = 4.28, p < .005]. In other words, adding the path from child temperament to family stress significantly improved the model's fit. There is an interesting debate in the extant literature about the nature of the relationship between parental discipline and child temperament. Many researchers have concluded that the relationship is most likely bi- directional (Gottlieb, 1991; Lerner & Lerner, 1987; 119 Schneirla, 1959). In an attempt to assess the bi- directionality of effects between child temperament and parental disciplinary practices, a path was added from temperament to discipline. Like previous models, alternate model 8 resulted in a significant Chi-Square [x2(df = 71, N = 260) = 116.44, p = .001], the GFI (.94) was large and the CFI (.74) and RMSEA (.05) were acceptable. Additionally, two times the degrees of freedom exceeded the x2[df = 71 x 2 = 142; 142 > 116.44]. Therefore, alternate model 8 represents an adequate fit to the data. The standardized path coefficients for alternate model 8 are presented in Figure 14. The direct path from family stress to parental disciplinary practices was non- significant in this model. The effects of family stress on child aggression were mediated by family cohesion and child temperament. Increased family stress resulted in decreased family cohesion (standardized coefficient = -.32). Decreased family cohesion predicted a decrease in the use of positive parental disciplinary practices (standardized coefficient = .52). Use of negative parental disciplinary practices predicted less adaptive child temperament (standardized coefficient = .39). However, this path was 120 not significant in the current model. Also non-significant was the path from child temperament to parental discipline (standardized coefficient = .23). Less adaptive child temperament predicted higher levels of aggressive behavior (standardized coefficient = -.49) and higher levels of family stress (standardized coefficient = -.49). The results indicate that family cohesion, parental discipline and child temperament are potential buffers of family stress effects on child aggression. Child temperament is predictive of both child aggression and family stress. The relationship between parental discipline and child temperament appears to be bi-directional but with stronger effects from parental discipline to child temperament. Chi-square comparison of alternate model 7 and alternate model 8 indicated that both models fit the data equally well [Ax2(260; 1) = 1.21, n.s.]. However, model 8 does provide some insight into the bi-directional relationship between parental disciplinary practices and child temperament. 121 .52: Parental Discipline Family Cohesion Child -. 16 _39 .23 Aggression Family Stress V 449‘ “49' Child Temperament -.32"' ‘Significant path Standardized Path Coefficients of Alternate Model 8. Figure 14. In summary, the alternate models preserved the statistically significant relationships from the original model. Specifically that Family stress indirectly affected child aggressive behaviors. Increased family stress resulted in decreased use of positive parenting practices. Positive parenting practices predicted more adaptive child temperament. In turn, adaptive child temperament predicted lower levels of aggressive behavior. The results indicate that parental discipline and child temperament are potential buffers of family stress effects on child aggression. Family Stress also predicted a decrease in family cohesion. In addition to preserving the 122 relationships from the original model, the alternate model demonstrated the role of family cohesion as a mediator of the relationship between family stress and parental discipline. Furthermore, the alternate model identified child temperament as a moderator of the relationship between family stress and parental discipline. Finally, the alternate model demonstrates a bi-directional relationship between parental discipline and child temperament. 123 Chapter 5 Discussion Evidence from several studies, including many longitudinal studies, converges to demonstrate that early aggressive behavior is indicative of later aggressive, delinquent, or antisocial behavior (Farrington, 1979; Huesmann et al., 1984; McCord, 1983; Pulkkinen, 1983; Roff, 1992; Stattin & Magnusson, 1989; Tremblay et al., 1992). For instance, predictive of delinquency are high levels of family adversity and punishment and low levels of monitoring or supervision as perceived by the youth (Haapasalo & Trembly, 1994; Laub & Sampson, 1988; McCord, 1983). According to Garmezy (1985), harmonious family interaction is likely to serve as a protective factor against negative outcomes in the face of stress. However, a disharmonious family, alone, is not sufficient to predict aggressive behavior or any other negative childhood outcome (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984; Werner & Smith, 1982). The primary goal of this investigation was to construct a developmental model to identify the probability of aggressive behavior given a particular set of individual, family, and social conditions. Therefore, this study considered variables that potentially mediate family 124 stress effects on the development of aggressive child behaviors. Summary and Discussion of Results Relationships in the models were all in the expected direction with four paths yielding significant results. Family stress directly predicted family cohesion. Family stress also indirectly affected child aggressive behaviors. Namely, that increased levels of family stress resulted in decreased use of positive parenting practices. Less positive parenting practices predicted less adaptive child temperament. In turn, less adaptive child temperament predicted higher levels of aggressive behavior. Family Stress Family stress predicted family cohesion as expected. Campbell (1990) found that higher stressed families were less likely to be cohesive and more likely to use ineffective parenting techniques. Parents plagued by stressors and difficult life circumstances, find it more challenging to provide a supportive environment for their children (McLoyd, 1989). Family Cohesion Contrary to findings in the extant literature, family cohesion did not predict aggressive child behavior. Many researchers have found a relationship between family 125 cohesion and aggressive child behavior problems (Barber & Buehler, 1996; Kliewer & Kung, 1998; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Mason, Cauce, Gonzales, Hiraga, & Grove, 1994; Pillay, 1998; Roosa et al., 1996; Tolan, Gorman-Smith, Huesmann, & Zelli, 1997). However, the exact mechanism by which family cohesion serves as a buffer is relatively unclear. Because the relationship between family cohesion and child aggression has been a robust finding in other studies, alternate models were created during analyses of these data to determine if family cohesion was mediating other important variables that demonstrated direct or indirect effects on child aggression. These analyses indicated that family cohesion acted as a mediator of family stress effects on parental disciplinary practices. This is consistent with the findings of Tolan, Gorman-Smith, Huesmann, and Zelli (1997), who found family cohesion to be associated with parental discipline and monitoring styles. In a study of 194, grade school boys living in a high risk neighborhood, Coughlin and Vuchinich (1996) revealed a strong correlation between parent-child relations, measured similarly to typically used family cohesion instruments, and parental disciplinary practices. In perfect agreement with the findings of this study, Belsky (1984) found it likely that 126 the impact of stress on the child is through its detrimental effect on family cohesion and parenting style. These studies and the results of the current study suggest that the mechanism by which family cohesion acts to impact child behavior may be embedded in its impact on parental disciplinary practices. Parental Disciplinary Practices Parental disciplinary practices were indirectly related to child aggression. Other research has reported a relationship between parenting practices and child behavior problems. For example, several studies revealed that ineffective parental discipline in combination with poor parental monitoring is predictive of early childhood conduct problems (Eddy & Fagot, 1991, April; Patterson et al., 1989). Specific findings are that erratic, harsh, physical or inconsistent punishment; poor supervision; parental rejection, indifference, or hostility are all related to childhood and adolescent aggression (Eron et al., 1991; Kazdin, 1987b; Loeber, 1988; McCord, 1990; Patterson et al., 1991; Wisdom, 1989). This study further clarified the mechanism by which parental disciplinary practices affect child behavior; specifically, through its impact on child temperament. This finding is supported by Maccoby and Martin (1983) who found 127 that children of parents who used inept parenting styles were less likely to arrive at the stage of successful self- regualtion. Parent—Child Social Interaction With respect to the effects of parent-child social interaction, Maccoby (1980) has argued that a number of parent variables are important in reducing the likelihood of child behavior problems. This multifaceted interaction of parent variables includes parental warmth, response contingency, facilitation of self discovery, and sensitivity of control (Baird et al., 1992; Baumrind, 1971; Crandell et al., 1997; Dowdney, 1985; Gardner, 1987; Parpal & Maccoby, 1985a; Pettit & Bates, 1989). Unfortunately, the current study did not demonstrate the typically reported importance of parent-child social interaction and child behavior. These paths were not found significant in the structural equation model. These findings seem suspect in comparison to the multitude of studies that have reported a significant relationship between parent-child social interaction and child behavior problems. Many of the expected correlational relationships between parent-child social interaction variables and child outcome variables were not found in the current data either. This discrepancy is most likely due to difficulty 128 in coding the measure of parent-child social interaction used in this study. The difficulty may have arisen from a failure to identify the essential patterns and combinations of exchanges deemed most important to behavioral outcomes. Other researchers have found that it is not the mere frequency of particular parenting behaviors that provide meaning, but the patterns and combinations of behaviors that occur. These dyadic profiles provide insight into the nature and quality of parent-child social interactions (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Baird et al., 1992; Chess, Thomas, & Birch, 1959; Mahoney, Fors, & Wood, 1990). Although great effort was taken to identify and use a detailed play observation technique, it seems that this attempt was unsuccessful. In view of all facts, it appears that parent-child social interaction was not accurately assessed in this study. Sex Differences Consistent with more traditional research, this study found boys to be more aggressive than girls as measured by the Child Behavior Checklist/2-3. Maccoby and Jacklin (1980) contend that sex differences in aggression do not typically emerge until children are school-aged. This study has revealed sex difference in aggression as young as 1-1/2 129 to 4-1/2 years of age. Several researchers find that sex differences are partially explained by the operational definition of aggression and the setting of the study. Dishion, Patterson, and Kavanagh (1992) discuss the importance of the context in which the child’s behavior is being measured. For instance, using the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1992), they found girls to show levels of problem behavior equal to that of their male counterparts within the context of the family. However, within the context of the school setting the level of problem behavior of girls was only half that of the boys. Given the fact that the children in this study do not yet attend school, it is most likely that the primary caregiver's responses were based on behavior in the home. According to the current study, at 1-1/2 to 4-1/2 years of age it seems that boys are more aggressive than girls, even in the context of the home environment. Other evidence suggests that levels of aggressive behavior are similar across sex but differ in content or type of aggression. According to Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, and Kaukiainen (1992), males are more likely to participate in physical aggression whereas females are more likely to aggress in less direct ways. That is, males are more likely to hit, kick, or punch others and girls are more likely to 130 ignore, talk negatively about, or reject others. Also supporting this view is the work of Crick and Grotpeter (1995), who have classified aggression into overt aggression (more typical of boys) and relational aggression (more typical of girls). The current study does not address this issue as some of these behaviors are beyond the developmental level of the subjects in this sample. Furthermore, detailed analyses of sex differences in aggression were not explored. At a future time, such analyses could be conducted with this data to explore potential differences in types of aggressive behavior exhibited in this sample across sexes. Child Temperament Child temperament is the only variable in the current study to have a significant direct effect on child aggressive behavior. This relationship has been demonstrated by several other studies and has been found to be quite stable. In Jansen, Fitzgerald, Ham, and Zucker (1995), 3 to 5 year old boys with difficult temperament were more likely to score in the clinical range of total behavior problems than were the boys with more adaptive temperament styles. Similarly, Pettit and Bates (1989) found early difficult temperament in infants to predict both internalizing and externalizing problems through 5 131 years of age. Difficult temperament style provides particularly powerful prediction of later adjustment problems across settings. For example, data from the New York Longitudinal Study revealed that individual early childhood differences in temperament traits including irregularity, nonadaptability, intensity, and negative mood were related to externalizing problems in late childhood (Chess & Thomas, 1987). Childhood aggression is typically studied as a precursor to adolescent delinquency (Roff, 1992). Evidence from several studies, including many longitudinal studies, converges to demonstrate that early aggressive behavior is indicative of later aggressive, delinquent, or antisocial behavior (Farrington, 1979; Huesmann et al., 1984; McCord, 1983; Stattin & Magnusson, 1989). For instance, Stattin and Magnusson (1989) claim that aggression in boys aged 10-13 years is highly related to criminal behavior up to age 26. Given evidence from the current study and other investigations, it is obvious that child temperament plays a critical role in the development of child problem behaviors. Furthermore, the results of other studies indicate that this relationship remains relatively stable across time. 132 Bi-directional Relationship Between Child Temperament and Parent Disciplinary Practices Alternate model 8 revealed an interesting bi- directional relationship between child temperament and parental disciplinary practices. Several other researchers have examined the nature of this relationship. The question is, does inept parenting create difficult child temperament or does difficult child temperament frustrate a parent to the point that they become inept at parenting? Studies of parent—infant relationships have not found infant temperament to impact the quality of caregiver responsiveness (Daniels, Plomin, & Greenhalgh, 1984). Sroufe contends that the quality of attachment security is not impacted by child temperament. Because caregivers are likely to make necessary adaptations to their child's temperament, he calls for an emphasis on these processes instead (as cited in Bates, 1987). It therefore seems that early in a child's life, parents are willing to make the necessary adjustments to remain responsive to the needs of their infant. Perhaps, this explains the general lack of differences observed in parent behavior across the care of infants of various temperament styles. Despite the sparse evidence to support temperament’s impact on infant/caregiver relationships, by two years of 133 age the influences of temperament become more detectable. Perhaps by this time the parent views the child as more capable of making adjustments to demands. Lee and Bates (1985) found that mothers of difficult sons were less controlling and directive than were mothers of easy sons. Instead of proactive methods of regulation, these mothers resorted to reactive methods. That is, increased use of short and negative verbal exchanges and physical restraint were found to accompany difficult child temperament. In Lee and Bates' study, circular reactions were observed. In other words, the child’s behavior problems escalated in response to maternal control and maternal control became more reactive in response to increased behavior problems. Findings in the current study suggest that there is a reciprocal relationship between child temperament and parent disciplinary practices. Difficult child temperament elicits less positive parenting practices and less positive parenting practices lead to less adaptive child temperament. However, results from alternate model 8, in this study, indicate that the latter is a stronger relationship. 134 Strengths and Limitations of the Study Limitations of the Study A primary limitation of the current study is that the design is not longitudinal. A longitudinal design, beginning in early infancy, would allow a clearer picture of the development and maintenance of aggressive behavior. A longitudinal design could help to clarify causality in complex relationships, such as the bi-directional relationship found between parent disciplinary practices and child temperament. Furthermore, it would be interesting to compare important family constructs across the developmental stages of the child. Perhaps, variables wax and wane in importance depending upon the developmental task specific to the age of the child. Although with the given sample it would be extremely difficult to utilize a multiple respondent design, the potential benefit may be worth the effort. The primary caregiver was the single respondent in this study. The difficulty in obtaining multiple respondents for this particular sample arose for several reasons. Namely, a large portion of the primary caregivers were single and the children typically had limited exposure to the other parent. Because the children were largely pre-verbal, self response was not an option. The play observation was used 135 as a way to obtain a more direct and less biased measure of parent—child social interaction style. Because the children were not of school age, the option of teacher response was not available. Many of the subjects were not employed and those who were typically did not use one daycare provider. It is possible that a future study with a similar sample could rely on a grandparent response or response of a close family friend. In terms of generalizability, it would be necessary to conduct this study on samples with different sample characteristics. The results of this study are generalizable to Black and Hispanic, low social economic status children aged 1-1/2 to 4-1/2 years of age. It would be interesting to compare these results to those of a sample with the same ethnic background but varying social economic status children or to white middle class children. Another limitation in the current study that may have influenced the results obtained is the measure of parent- child social interaction. It may be that a 15-minute video tapped play session is just not enough time to effectively tap such complex behavior. It is likely that parents were uncomfortable and unnatural in their video tapped play session. It could be that the coding was not as reliable as indicated by our test of reliability. As mentioned earlier, 136 problems may have arisen as a lack of ability to capture the important patterns of exchanges. In any event, as measured and coded, this variable did not display expected correlational relationships with child outcome variables and there were no significant paths involving this construct in the structural equation model. In view of the fact that other studies have demonstrated the importance of parent-child social interaction in the development of child behavior problems, findings in this study regarding parent- child social interaction should be viewed as suspect. In sum, there are several ways that the current study may be improved upon for future investigations, however, the results obtained in the present study are meaningful and useful in many respects. Strengths of the Study The primary strength of the current study is the uniqueness of the sample. Of the 260 adult subjects, 210 (80.8%) were black; 37 (14.2%) were Hispanic or Latino; 11 (4.2%) were white; one was Asian-Pacific; and one individual classified her ethnic background as other. Subjects were predominately single mothers of low social economic status. Most previous research has been conducted on white middle-class children. The sample of this study, marks a strong contribution to the extant literature. 137 Children were 1-1/2 to 4-1/2 years of age. This allowed for investigation of problem behaviors at the emergent level. Unless longitudinal in design, results of studies involving adolescence are blurred by a multitude of unrecorded events. In this much of this is overcome by the young age of the children. Another strength of this study is the number of variables tapped. A battery of instruments was carefully chosen to assess the following variables: child temperament, child problem behavior, parent-child social interaction, parent disciplinary practices, family stress, parent coping, family cohesion, and family demographics. Many studies do not have the resources to conduct such a comprehensive assessment. In addition to the scope of variables examined, this study utilized both questionnaire response and direct observation, thereby providing a rich data set from which to conduct analyses. Suggestions for Future Research Future research should focus on a longitudinal design beginning in infancy. From this study, it is obvious that family stress, poor parent disciplinary practices, and difficult child temperament create a strong trajectory toward childhood aggression as early as 1-1/2 years of age. A longitudinal study, beginning in infancy could 138 potentially uncover the causality of this trajectory. Furthermore, a longitudinal study would help establish the stability of the precursors to aggressive child behavior. Temperament traits are mutable and modifiable but have a tendency to remain relatively stable across time (Lerner & Lerner, 1987). Child aggression has been shown to be highly stable (Baron & Richardson, 1994; Conger & Miller, 1966; Robins, 1966; West & Farrington, 1973). Although there is typically a decrease in the number of aggressive acts over time, aggressive children tend to retain their relative ranking within their peer group (Loeber & Hay, 1997). Knowledge about stability of family stress, family cohesion and parental disciplinary practices could provide a more complete understanding of the relationships in the model. As discovered in the alternate model, family cohesion did serve to buffer the effects of family stress on parent disciplinary practices. Future hypotheses should include family cohesion as a potential mediator of the effects of family stress. Further examination of the exact meaning and role of family cohesion is strongly suggested. Also of import to future research is the development and use of instruments to assess aggressive behavior in infancy and early childhood. Careful attention must be 139 focused on instrument selection in order to tap developmentally appropriate behaviors. Aggressiveness and related problem behaviors comprise an alarming 30-50% of all child and adolescent clinic referrals (Gilbert, 1957; Herbert, 1978). The link between aggression and negative outcomes warrants sufficient concern to further explore its origins and maintenance. These issues must be better understood in order to create and implement effective methods of prevention and intervention. Conclusions The primary goal of this investigation was to construct a developmental model to identify the relationship between family stress and child aggression as mediated by family cohesion, child temperament, parent- child social interaction, parent disciplinary practices, parent coping, family hardiness, and family demographics. Although there are limitations to this study, the ethnic background of the subjects and findings of a significant trajectory to child aggressive behaviors are important contributions to the literature. Correlational evidence supported all relationships specified in the hypothesized model. Through structural equation modeling it was discovered that family stress 140 indirectly affected child aggressive behaviors. Namely, that increased levels of family stress resulted in decreased use of positive parenting practices. Less positive parenting practices predicted less adaptive child temperament. In turn, less adaptive child temperament predicted higher levels of aggressive behavior. The results indicate that parental discipline and child temperament are potential buffers of family stress effects on child aggression. From this study, it is obvious that family stress, poor parent disciplinary practices, and difficult child temperament create a strong trajectory toward childhood aggression as early as 1-1/2 years of age. The alternate model demonstrated that family cohesion mediates the deleterious effects of family stress on child behavior and also revealed a bi-directional relationship between parent disciplinary practices and child temperament. Taken together, these findings support the basic tenets of Developmental Systems Theory. Heavily supported by present findings is the notion that meaningful relationships can only be uncovered through the inclusion of multi—level variables and reciprocal processes. Individual, family, and contextual factors must be taken into account in order to obtain an accurate picture of 141 human dynamics (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Gottlieb, 1991; Schneirla, 1959; Wachs, 1992). 142 APPENDICES 143 APPENDIX A Human Subjects Approval Letter 144 . UTKEU: RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDflfii University Committee ea Researehlnvohflag Human Subleets ("GWEN Mitsugan State Utivelsiiy 232 Acnsmstralion Building £55! Lansmq. Michigan 4&Qtwfi surname) FAX 51714324171 '~._.‘ 1' -.;).ln $3.? (1":me (Ki-smurwflmmm [ni‘:"-'l"'.':‘ I" 4am .115. . !" l"-""l.':ir 1110". . ': j, ulslclldll" MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY October 14, 1996 To: Bertram Stoffelmayr Of Psychiatry Dept 41 East Fee Hall RE: IRE”: 96-572 TITLE: DETROIT SKILLMAN CHILD EVALUATION STUDY REV I S ION REQUESTED: N/A CATEGORY : 2 - I APPROVAL DATE: 10/11/95 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'iUCRIHS) review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adv se that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately rotected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. herefore, the UCRIHS approved this project and any reVisions listed above. RENEWAL: REVISIONS: PROBLEMS] CHANGIB: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a project beyond one year must use the green renewal form (enclosed with t e original agproval letter or when a project is renewed) to seek u te certification. There is a maXimum of four such expedite renewals ssible. Investigators wishin to continue a project beyond tha time need to submit it again or complete reView. UCRIHS must review any changes in rocedures involving human subjects, rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To revise an approved protocol at an 0 her time during the year, send your written request to the CRIHS Chair, requesting reVised approval and referenCing the project's IRB # and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised ins ruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. Should_either of the followin arise during the course of the work, investi ators must noti UCRIHS promptly: (1) roblems (unexpected s de effects comp aints, e c.) involving uman subjects_or (2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human sub ects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved. If we can be of any future helpé lease do not hesitate to contact us at (517)355-2180 or FAX (517)e 171. {yell al.111168— David E. Wright; Ph.D. UCRIHS Ch81 DBH:bed 1' cc: Urminda Firlan 145 APPENDIX B Correlation Matrix of Scaled Scores 146 NO. AH. No. OO. NN. OO. me. mm. ON. .on OH.i aO.- OO.- mO.- OO. HO.- OO.- OO.- OO.- uuoo NHHHHnoHoom .«HoOmmmo MH OO. OO. me. mN. OO. OH. OO. me. ON. .on HO. we. OO. eO. ON.- NO. HH. OO. OO. wuoo ououm.soHnoud Houoe mdeemoz NH OO. OO. Na. mm. OO. OO. NO. mo. NN. .OHm so. me. HO.- OO. ON.- OO. OH. NO. OO. uuoo usoHoowN Hoauo macemo HH OO. OO. NH. NN. OO. mo. OO. OO. ea. .OHm OO. oa. OH. OO. HN.- mo. HH. NO. NO. uuoo OdHuHHoewouxm exmemo OH OO. HH. mH. OO. OO.H NH. He. OO. .OHm OO.H OO. OH. OO. mN.- OO. OH. OO. HO. uuoo uoH>oaom o>HuusuuooO .memmoemo in OO. AH. Nm. HO. on. OH. me. Oh. .OHm mo. OO.H mo. OO. OH.- eO. OH. HO. NO. wuoo noesorom osHuoowoOa. mmmomemo Ha HH. AH. OO. OO. OO. OO. HN. mo. .OHm OH. mo. OO.H aN. Oe.i eN.i mH.i OO. mH.- uuoo oar uHHnaN Hoode onmONN A OH. Nm. OO. OO. Om. NH. NO. OO. .OHm aO. OO. aN. OO.H mm.- OO. OH.- OH.- ON.- uuoo oonuoz uo>oz shoeHm mHoszo HO OO. HO. OO. OO. HO. OO. No. OO. .OHm mN.i OH.- oe.i mm.- OO.H OH. Hm. no. mo. uuoo esoocH Hood5N HHesda momHHNO< Hm OO.H or. OO. am. HO. NO. OO. Ho. .OHm OO. 8. HN.- HO. OH. OO.H 3.- NI 8.- 38 uaoEoHdsm Sofia odeNOam O NH. OH. eO. NH. OO. NO. mO. OO. .OHm oHoeouaom OH. OH. 2.. OH... HO. 3.- OO.H eH. HN.- uuoo 2: 3364 no 852 5:928 m He. mm. HN. NO. OO. OO. mo. OO. .OHm oHoaouaom mo. Ho. mo. mH.l mo. wN.l «a. OO.H mm. HHOU Gun COHUHHHLU no Hwnfisz MAHmUHmU N ON. OH. HO. OO. OO. HO. OO. OO. .OHm HO. NO. mH.- ON.- no. OO.- HN.- mN. OO.H uuoo weapon No our. OscaHOa .H m m h m m e m N H Henna oHnmaum> .uco .mouoom Coamom no xfluumz coaumaouuoo .m manna 147 OO. OO. NN. ON. OO. HO. AO. OO. OO. .OHO OO.- OO. OO.- AO.- HO.- OH. OO. OO.- OO.- uuoo oudooHso_ moHooOmo AN ON. OO. OO. OH. OO. NH. OO. NN. OO. .OHO OO.- OO.- OO.- OO.- AO.- OH. OO.- OO.- HH.- uuoo NHH>HHuO.udHoO HoaAOOmo ON OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. OO. OH. ON. OH. .OHO ououm outeddum ouHoodsoo HN.- NH.- OO. OO. OO. OO.- OH.- OO.- OO.- uuoo uoHsaaom osHudooa. OOOmdAOa_ ON OO. OO. OA. OA. OO. HO. HO. OO. NO. .OHO ouooO NN.l HH... «0. No.l ma. mo.l Ho.l oo. wo.l Huoo Cumocmum maawxm uouoz mmeozbofl ON OH. AH. OO. ON. HO. OA. OO. HO. OO. .OHO ouooO 0H.l mo.) Ho.l ho. mo. No. «of WEI 3f uuoo oumocmum coaumuflamaoom mHUOmhon mu OO. OH. OO. OO. NN. OO. OO. AA. OO. .OHO ououm ouooooum OH.) OH.- OO. OH. OO.- OO. NH.- No.1 OO.- uuoo OHHHHO ocHsHH HHHOO AOOHOAO< NN OO. ON. OH. NO. OO. AN. OO. ON. OO. .OHO ouooO ON.) AO.- OH. OH. OO.- AO.- OH.- AO.- OO.- uuoo numeroum doHuooHdaeeoo OzzooAOa HN OO. OO. OH. NO. NO. OA. HO. OO. OO. .OHO AN. HO. OO.- OO.- OO.- NO.- AH. OO. OO. uwoo udsuuHo OOOHoOmo ON OO. OO. OO. OA. OO. NN. NO. OO. OO. .OHO OO.- OO.- HO.- NO.- OH. OO.- OO.- OO.- OO. uwoo HHOEoo _HazooOmo OH HO. NO. AO. AO. OO. AO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO OH.- OH.- HO. OO. OH. OO. OO.- OO.- OO. uuoo umoudxm umdmemo OH OO. HO. OO. ON. OO. HO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO OH.- AH.- NH.- OO.- OH. OO.- NH. OO.- OO.- uuoo HHHHHnoruooO OeooOOmo AH OO. HO. OO. NO. OO. OO. AO. HH. OO. .OHO mucouuHouoa OH.- AH.- NO.- OO. OO. OO. OO.- OH.- OO. uuoo idodm eoHueouua. zmeAOOmo OH HA. OO. AH. NN. NO. OO. ON. OO. OH. .OHO NO. OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. OO. OH.- OO.- uwoo HHH>HHoa. _>HAo¢Omo OH OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OA. OO. NA. OO. .OHO ON. AO. ON. NH. 2.. NO... OO.- NO. OO. “Goo 33303on 30:33 OH O O A O O O O N H HOQOH OHooHuo> .uuo .Ho.ucoov .O oHnmA 148 HO. HN. AO. OO. OH. OO. HH. OO. OO. .OHO moocouuesouHo PH. mo. HH. vo.l mo.) vo. 0H.l NH. mH. Huoo mqu uHHHoHMMHQ Hmuoa BUHQFHNU mm OO. HO. OO. OO. OO. OH. AO. OO. OA. .OHO ON. OH. OH. ON. OO.) OO. HH.) OO. NO. uwoo odoo Houoa_ OAOAOHOo OO OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. NO. .OHO HausdouHsdm OH.) OH.) HN.) OH.) OO. OH. OH.) OH.) HO.) wuoo AHOEOO Ho saw mszOHmo AO OH. OO. OO. ON. ON. OO. AN. OO. NA. .OHO OH.) NH.) NH.) AO.) AO.) OO.) AO.) ON.) NO.) uuoo usouH moaHuaom AHOEOO mmOOOHmo OO OO. OO. OO. HO. NO. NO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO OH.) OH.) ON.) AH.) OH. OO. OO. NH.) NO. uuoo .moaouuHocoo OuoeHHaHuuHo zooOHuo OO OO. OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. AN. OH. . NH. .OHO mooHuuduN ON.) OH.) OO.) OO. OH. OO. AO.) OO.) OH.) uuoo OoHuooO oHHao OdHusuusz. _eOOzOHOo OO OH. NO. OO. OO. OA. OO. OO. ON. OO. .OHO Oo. OH. OH. mo. No. mo.) 00. no. Oo.) Huoo ocHHaHomHa Hmonzsm mwmmNHmo mm OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. AH. OH. AO. ON. .OHO OH. OH. OH. HH. ON.) OO.) OO.) OO. AO.) uuoo ocHHdHomHo Hoon>onomfl .OOOONHOO NO OO. OO. OH. OH. OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. .OHO HH.) OH.) OO.) OO.) OH. OO. HO.) OO.) HO.) uuoo oaHHdHuuHo Hugues. mOm>NHOo HO OO. OO. OO. OH. AH. OO. OO. HO. OO. .OHO ON.) ON.) OH.) OO.) OO. NH. OH.) OH.) HO.) uuoo OOOOHOHOO NHesdu mOOOHHmo OO AH. NN. OO. OH. HO. ON. HO. OH. NO. .OHO OO. OO. HH.) OO.) HO.) AO. OO.) OH.) OO. uuoo o>HoauucH omezHOmo ON AO. NO. OO. OO. AH. OO. OH. OH. OO. .OHO OO.) HO. OO. OO. OO.) NH. OO.) OO.) NH.) uuoo mononoxm «momemo ON O O A O O O O N H . HOQOH oHnOHuo> .udo .Ao.ucoov .m oHQmB 149 OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. AO. .OHO OO. NN. ON. ON. OH.) OO.H OH.) OH.) HH.) Huoo AHHHHQOHooO .mHooOOmo OH OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO ON.) OH.) ON.) OH.) OO. OH.) OO.H OO. HO. wuoo ououm.eoHnouN Houoa ONeOmoz NH OO. NH. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. .OHO ON.) OH.) OH.) HH.) ON. OH.) OO. OO.H OO. uwoo uEOHnouO Hoduo meoOmo HH HO. OO. OO. OO. OO. AO. OO. OO. . .OHO OH.) OH.) OH.) OO. OO. HH.) HO. OO. OO.H uuoo OOHNHHocuouxm ememo OH HO. OO. OO. HA. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO OH.) OH.) OH.) NO. ON. OH.) HO. AO. OO. uuoo uoH>onom osHuoauuooo .mAOmoOmo mm NO. HO. HO. OO. OO. AH. OO. OO. OO. .OHO OH.) AH.) AH.) OO. AO. OO.) OO. OO. OO. uuoo uoH>onom osHooouOOO. memoaOmo O AO. OO. OO. AH. OO. NO. OO. NO. NH. .OHO 8. NH.) «0.) mo. om. Oo.) mo. .3.) 0H. uuoo l CH4 UHHQHE >3..ch QHHOmDmN A AO. ON. NO. NN. OO. OO. ON. OO. NN. .OHO OO. OO.) OO. OO. NH. OO.) AO. OO. OO. uuoo _oOkuOz uo>oz Ouoch. mHozHOow O OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. NN. OO. OO. OO. .OHO OH. OH. OO. OH. OH.) OO. ON.) ON.) HN.) uuoo esoodH Hgag OHHEOO moOHHNom HO AO. HO. OO. OO. OA. OO. OA. OO. OO. .OHO OO. OO.) OO. OO. NO.) HO.) NO. OO. OO. uuoo udonoHdeO 36ch OHHOHNOHHO O OO. OO. AO. ON. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. .OHO oHoeooaom OO.) NH. OO.) OO. OO.) OO.) HH. OH. HH. wuoo H: 332 Oo “H352 SOOHHHOO O OO. OO. HH. OO. NA. OO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO oHosouaom Oo.) Oo.) OH.) OH.) No. OO.) 3. No. mo. uuoo 5 5.5330 mo monasz quonmo N OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. ON. ON. NN. OA. .OHO OO. OO.) OO. OO.) OO. AO.) OO. OO. NO. uuoo wonuoz Ho doe. AzemHo< .H OH AH OH OH OH OH NH HH OH HthH OHnOHwo> .uco .Ho.ucoov .m oHnme 150 OO. HN. AO. OH. HA. OO. NA. OA. OO. .OHO OO. OO.) OO.) OO.) NO. OO.) NO. NO.) NO. uuoo oucdoHao OOHOOOOO AN OH. OO. OO. OO. OO. OH. NO. AO. OO. .OHO OO. OO. OO. HO.) NO.) OO. OO.) OO.) OO.) uuoo OuH>Huoa.ueHoO AOOAOOOU ON OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. HO. HO. .OHO ouooO unannoum ouHuoOEoo OO. HN. OO. HN. OH.) ON. HN.) OH.) OH.) uuoo uoH>oeom o>Hudooa. OOOmaAOa_ ON OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. HO. .OHO ououm AO. HO. ON. ON. AH.) ON. HN.) OH.) OH.) wuoo ouoocoum OHHHHO uouoz OO.H.ozAOm ON OO. OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. OO. NN. HH. .OHO ouooO mm. HN. mm. mH. mo.) mm. MH.) mo.) OH.) uuoo ouoocmum cOHHMNHHmHoom mHUOon¢_ mm OO. OO. OO. ON. OO. NO. NO. OH. OO. .OHO ouooO ouooeoum OO. OH. ON. OO. OH.) OH. OH.) OH.) NH.) uuoo OHHHHO OOH>HH OHHOO OOOHOAOO NN OO. OO.H OO. OH. OO. OO. HO. HO. OO. .OHO ouoom OO. OO. ON. OO. OO.) OH. OH.) AH.) NH.) uuoo ouoocoum coHuooHe:HEoo OzzooAOHH HN HO. OH. OH. OA. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO HO. OO. OO.) NO.) AH. NH.) AO. OO. OO. uuoo HOOHOHO .OOOHOOOO ON OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO OA. OO. AO. NH. OO.) ON. HO.) HO.) OO.) uuoo ) HHOEoo .HdzooOmo OH . OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. HO. .OHO OO.H OO. OO. ON. NN.) OO. ON.) ON.) OH.) uuoo ououdxmn mmdmemo OH OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NH. OO. .OHO OO. OO.H OO. OH. OO.) NN. OH.) OH.) OH.) uuoo OHHHHooruooO OeooOOmo AH OO. OO. . OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO mucouuHuwom OO. OO. OO.H ON. ON.) ON. ON.) OH.) OH.) Huoo )dodm eoHudouua. zmaemOmo OH OO. OO. OO. HO. OO. OH. OO. OO. .OHO ON. OH. ON. OO.H NO.) ON. OH.) HH.) OO. uuoo OuHsHuoa. .>HeodOmo OH OO. OO. OO. HO. OO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO NN.) OO.) ON.) NO.) OO.H OH.) OO. ON. OO. uuoo OuHHocoHuosm HAOZOOOO OH OH AH OH OH OH OH NH HH OH HOHOH OHoOHuo> .uco .Ho.ucoov .m magma 151 OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OA. NO. HO. OO. .OHO wouOOHOEOouHo NN.) Om.) NH.) Ho. mN. No.) OH. OH. NH. wuoo OMHH uHHHoHuuHo Hench BUHQOHNU mm OO. OO. HO. OH. OO. OO. OO. HO. OO. .OHO OH.) ON.) OH.) OO.) HN. NH.) HN. OH. OH. uuoo odoo Hones. oeonHOo OO OO. HO. OO. OH. OO. OH. OO. OO. HO. .OHO uaoedouH>gO HH. OH. OH. OO. ON.) OO. OH.) NH.) OH.) uuoo OHOEOO Oo Ham azOOOHOo AO OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. OO. OO. HH. OO. .OHO ON. HO. ON. OO. HO.) OH. HH.) OH.) OH.) uuoo u23H mooHuaoO HHOEOO OOOOOHOO OO OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. HO. NO. NN. OO. .OHO ON. ON. OH. OO. ON.) OH. OH.) OO.) ON.) uuoo .OodoumHocoo HHOOHHdHouHO zooOHmo OO OO. OO. AO. HO. HO. OO. OO. OO. . OO. .OHO mooHuoouN ON. Oo. HH. OH. OH.) HH. ON.) ON.) HN.) .HHoo meadow oHHHHo ocHuouHHHz EDZOHNU Om ON. HO. OH. OO. OO. OO. ON. HO. OO. .OHO Ao.) OH.) OH.) mo. Om. mo.) Ao. mo. mH. uuoo ocHHmHomHo HoontEm mwmmNHmo mm OO. AN. AO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. HO. .OHO OO. AO. OO. OO. OO. NO.) OH. NH. OH. uuoo ocHHdHoOHO HouoHsoaoOH .mmmmNHmo NO OO. OO. HO. NN. NH. OO. OO. NO. OO. .OHO ON. OH. AH. OO. OH.) OH. OH.) OH.) OH.) uuoo oaHHdHoOHo Hoodos, mOm>NHmo HO OO. OO. OO. AO. OO. NN. OO. OO. OO. .OHO ON. HO. NH. OO.) HN.) OO. ON.) ON.) ON.) uuoo OuoeHOHOO HHOEOO OOOOHHOO OO OO. NH. HA. OO. OO. AO. NO. OO. AH. .OHO ) HH. OH. NO. OO. OO.) OO. OO. HO. OO. uuoo osHuauueH anzHOmo ON OO. OO. NN. NA. OO. AO. OO. AO. OO. .OHO OH. HO. OO. NO. OO. HH. NO.) OO.) OO. uuoo oouoroxmn .dmoxOOOo ON OH AH OH OH .OH OH NH HH OH HOHOH oSOHO“; .uco .Ho.ucoov .m OHQMB 152 OO. OH. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO OO.) OO. ON. ON. ON. OH. OH. NH.) ON. uuoo OHHHHHOHuoO .mHooOOmo OH NA. NO. OO. OO. OO. NO. HO. OO. OO. .OHO NO. OO.) HN.) HN.) OH.) OH.) OH.) AO. HO.) uwoo ouoom.edHnouO Hhuoe ONAOmoz NH OA. AO. HO. OO. NN. OH. HO. OO. OO. .OHO NO.) OO.) OH.) OH.) OO.) OH.) AH.) OO. HO.) uuoo aEOHnouN Horuo maoOmo HH OO. OO. HO. HO. HH. OO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO NO. OO.) OH.) OH.) OH.) NH.) NH.) OO. OO.) uuoo OdHNHHoawouxm ememo OH OO. ON. OO. OO. OH. OO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO OO.) OO.) HN.) NN.) OH.) OH.) ON.) AN. OO.) uuoo uoHsorom osHuosuuooo .OeOmoOmo HO OO. OO. OO. OO. AH. OH. ON. OO. OO. .OHO OO. OO.) NH.) HH.) OO.) OH.) AO.) HO. OO.) uuoo Howeorom o>HumouOOO. ONOOOOOO_ O NN. OO. OO. OA. OO. OO. OH. OH. OO. .OHO mo.) mo.) Oo. No. Ho.) mo. 0H. mo.) H0.) .300 CHAN UHHQHHm auoch 93323 A. ON. OH. OH. OA. ON. OO. NO. NO. OA. .OHO AO.) OO.) OO. NO.) AO. OH. OH. OO.) NO.) uuoo OOHuwoz hosoz OuogHm mHozHOO HO OO. OO. OO. OO. HO. NN. OO. NO. OO. .OHO HO.) AO.) OO. OH. NO. OO.) OO.) OO.) OH. 8.8 e285 Headed 3an moOHHNOHH O HO. NH. OO. HO. OA. OO. AN. OA. NN. .OHO OH. OH. OO.) OO.) NO. OO. AO.) NO.) OO.) 38 €onng 36on o .uco .Ho.ucoov .m OHQOB 153 OO. NO. HO. NO. HO. ON. OO. OO. .OHO OO.H OO. OH.) AH.) OH.) OO.) AO.) HO.) OO.) uuoo oucooHaO_ OOHOOOmo AN OO. OO. HO. OO. HO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO OO. OO.H OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OH. uuoo HHH>Huo¢ udHoO AOOAOOOO ON NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO ouooO ouoocdum OOHuodeoo OH.) OO. OO.H AA. AA. NO. OA. OO.) NO. uuoo uoH>oHom o>Huoooa. OOOmera ON HO. HO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. .OHO ououO AH.) Oo. AA. oo.H OO. om. HO. mo. OO. uuoo pudendum mHHme Houoz mmeoond ON NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OA. OO. .OHO ouooO OH.) 00. AA. mv. OO.H mm. mm. No.) om. Huou Cumocmum GOHHONHHmHoom mHUOonHHH MN HO. HO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO ouooO odooaoum Oo.) Oo. NO. OO. OO. OO.H AO. Oo.) mm. .38 33% mcH>HH AHHmo AmmHvoc NN ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. .OHO ouoom AO.) OO. OA. HO. OO. AO. OO.H OH.) AN. uuoo endocoum coHuooHeaasoo OzzooAOa HN OO. OO. OO. NO. OA. OO. OH. . HO. .OHO HO.) OO. OO.) OO. NO.) OO.) OH.) OO.H OH.) uuoo udaumHo OOOHOOOO ON OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. HO. .OHO OO.) OH. NO. OO. OO. OO. AN. OH.) OO.H uuoo HHOEoo _HOzooOmo OH OO. OH. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. HO. OO. .OHO OO. OO. OO. AO. OO. OO. OO. HO. OA. uuoo amouoxmfl mmdeOmo OH HN. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO.H OH. OO. .OHO OO.) OO. HN. HO. HN. OH. OO. OO. OO. uuoo OHHHHooaoooO OAooOOOo AH AO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. .OHO mucouuHmuoa OO.) OO. OO. ON. ON. ON. ON. OO.) AO. uuoo )dtdO doHueouua. zOAAmOOo OH OH. OO. OO. OO. OO. ON. OH. OA. OO. .OHO OO.) HO.) HN. ON. OH. OO. OO. NO.) NH. uuoo OuHsHuua. _>Heo¢Omo OH HA. OO. NO. OO. OH. OO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO NO. NO.) OH.) AH.) OO.) OH.) OO.) AH. OO.) uwoo AHHHo:oHuoem Heoszmo OH AN ON ON ON ON NN HN ON OH HOOOH OHOOHuo> .uao .Ho.ucoov .O oHnmA 154 OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. .OHO moocouueaouHo mo.) 00. OH.) OH.) 2.) O0.) mo.) mo.) Nm.) uuoo .1...qu HHSUHMHHQ Houoa BUHQAHNU mm HO. OO. HH. OO. HH. OO. ON. OO. OO. .OHO OH. HO. OH.) HO.) OH.) OO. OO. OO.) ON.) uuoo oaoo Hooch. oeoAOHmo OO ON. OH. HH. HH. OO. OA. OO. HA. OO. .OHO HausdouH>om AO. OO. OH. OH. OH. NO. OO. NO.) OH. uuoo HHOHOO Ho Ham HEOOOHOO AO OO. AH. OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. HH. OO. .OHO OO. OO. ON. HN. Haw OO. NH. OH. AO. uuou msouH ooeHeaoO HHHAAO OOOOOHOO OO OO. AO. OH. HO. OO. ON. OO. NO. OO. .OHO HO.) HH. OH. OO. ON. AO. OO. OO.) AN. uuoo. _HooouuHocoo OuoaHHdHouHo zooOHOo OO AA. OO. OH. OO. OO. OO. OH. HO. OO. .OHO mooHuoouN NO. OO. OO. HH. OO. HO. OH. AH.) ON. uuoo 9:32 326 83332 emonHmo OO HN. OH. AO. OA. ON. OO. NO. AO. OO. .OHO O0.) O0.) O0. No.) Ao.) Oo. OH. mo.) AN.) .300 $3333 HooHOAHE mummNHmo mm AO. OA. AO. OA. NO. HO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO Oo.) No.) HH. No. OH. OH. mo. NH. 00. uuoo mcHHQHomHo HOHOHbmnom EmmNHmo NO. ON. AO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO AO.) HO. OH. OH. OH. OO. OO. AO. ON. uuoo oeHHdHuOHO Hordes. mmm>NHmo HO ON. OO. HO. OO. OO. OO. NO. ON. HO. .OHO AO. NH. OO. HO. HO. OO. OO. AO.) AH. too assume :95 OOOOHHOO OO ON. OH. ON. AO. OO. ON. OO. NN. ON. .OHO AO. OO. AO. OO. OO. AO. OO. OO. AO. uuoo o>HuauucH OOAzHOmo ON OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. AO. OO. ON. OO. .OHO AO. OA. OH. OO. OO. HH. OH. AO.) OH. uuoo oocoaoxm .mmomemo ON AN ON ON ON ON NN HN ON OH H33 OHndHuo> .udo .Ho.ucoov .m mHnme 155 OO. HO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NN. AO. AO. .OHO OH. OH. HH. OO.) NO.) OH. OO. OO. HH. uuoo AHHHHOOHooO .OHooOOOo OH OO. NO. OO. ON. NO. OO. OO. NO. OO. .OHO HH.) OH.) ON.) AO. OH. OH.) ON.) OO. NO.) uuoo ououm OdHnouO Houoe ONAOOoz NH HH. NN. OO. HO. OO. NO. OO. OO. AO. .OHO OH.) OO.) ON.) OO. NH. OH.) ON.) HO. OO.) uuoo OOOHnouO Horne OeoOOo HH OO. OO. OO. OO. HO. OO. OO. AH. OO. .OHO OH.) ON.) HN.) OH. OH. OH.) ON.) OO. OO. uuoo OOHNHHOOHOHOO exOOOo OH OH. OO. OO. OH. OO. OO. OO. AH. AO. .OHO OH.) OH.) ON.) OO. OH. HH.) ON.) OO. OO.) uuoo HoHsonoO o>HquHuOoo .OAOOOOOO HO OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. NN. NO. .OHO NH.) OH.) OH.) OH. OH. OH.) ON.) OO. HO. Huoo Hoa>onom osHOOouOOO. OmOOOOOo O OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. OO.. OO. .OHO NH.) ON.) Oo.) OH. OH. mo.) OH.) HH.) mo. uuou I CHHHH oHHQHHm Aumch DHHHmDmN A ON. HO. OO. OO. OO. OH. OH. OH. OO. .OHO -- AO.) AH.) OO. OO. HH. OO.) OO.) OO.) OO. uuoo OOHHumz Ho>oz OHOOHO OHozHOo HO ON. NO. OH. OA. OO. OO. AH. HO. AH. .OHO AO.) OH. OH. NO. ON.) OH. OO. HO.) OO.) uuoo usouOH HOOOOO HHHOOO OOOHHNOO HO OO. NO. OO. OO. AH. OO. OO. ON. OO. .OHO OO.) OO. OO. OO.) OO.) OO. NH. AO. NH. uuoo uOmOOoHdOO OHOOHOH QOOHNOaO O AN. OO. AN. OO. OH. OO. OO. HO. OH. .OHO oHoOomOoO AO.) OO. AO.) OO. OO.) HO.) OH.) OO.) OO.) uuoo OH SHOE Ho $8.52 SOOOHHOO O OO. OO. OH. ON. AO. OH. HO. OH. OH. .OHO oHoOOOOoO ON.) NH.) OO.) AO. OO. OO.) OH.) OH.) OO.) uuoo OH OouoHHOo Ho uohOOz. .OHHOoHOo N NA. OO. NH. OO. ON. OO. OO. NO. OO. .OHO NO.) NO. OH.) OO.) AO.) HO.) HO.) OO. NH.) uuoo Horne: Ho OOO. AZOOHOO .H OO OO OO OO NO HO OO ON ON HooaH OHanuo> .uOo .Ho.ucoov .m OHQOA 156 OO. OO. AA. HN. AO. ON. ON. ON. OO. .OHO OO. HO.) NO. OO.) OO.) AO.) AO. AO. AO. wuoo ouOooHOo OOHOOOOO AN AH. AO. OO. OH. OA. AO. OO. OH. OO. .OHO OO. HH. OO. OO.) NO.) HO. NH. OO. OA. uuoo HHH>HuoO_uOHoO eoOOOOOo ON OO. OH. OH. AO. AO. OO. HO. ON. OO. .OHO_ ouooO OHOOOOHO ouHoodOoo ON. OH. OO. OO. HH. OH. OO. AO. OH. uuoo HoHsoaom o>HHdOOO. OOOOOAOO ON OO. HO. OO. OA. OA. OO. OO. AO. OO. .OHO ouooO HN. OO. HH. NO.) NO. OH. HO. OO. OO. 38 OHOOOOHO OHHHHO uouoz OO.H.ozAOO ON OO. OO. OO. ON. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO ououm AH. ON. OO. AO.) OH. OH. HO. OO. OO. Huoo OHOOOOHO OoHuouHHOHoom OHooOAoO_ ON OH. ON. OO. OO. HO. OO. OO. ON. AO. .OHO ououm OHOOOOHO mo. Ao. Ho. Oo. OH. mo. mo. Ao. HH. .300 93me ocH>HH AHHMQ BmOHvod NN OO. OO. OH. NO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. .OHO ououm NH . oo . 0H . OH . mo . Oo . Oo . Oo . mH . uuoo oumocmum HHOHumoHHHHHEEoo mZZOUAoHH HN HH. NO. HO. AO. OO. OO. ON. NN. ON. .OHO OH. OO.) AH.) OO.) NH. AO. AO.) OO. AO.) uuoo HOOHOHO OOOHOOOo ON OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. HO. ON. OO. .OHO AO. AN. ON. AN.) OO. ON. AH. AO. OH. Huoo OHdOoo _HazooOOo OH OO. OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO ON. ON. ON. AO.) OO. ON. ON. HH. OH. uuoo amoudxmi OOOxOOOo OH OO. OO. OO. HO. AN. OO. OO. NH. OO. .OHO HO. ON. OO. OH.) AO. OH. HO. OH. HO. Huoo OHHHHOOOuooO OeooOOOo AH OO. OO. AO. OH. AO. HO. OO. HA. NN. .OHO ouOoumHOHOO ON. OH. HH. OH.) OO. AH. NH. NO. OO. uuoo )OOOO OoHuOoqu. zOAAOOOo OH OH. OO. HO. OO. OO. NN. AO. OO. NA. .OHO OO. OO. OH. OO. OO. OO. OO.) OO. NO. uuoo OuHsHuoO. _>HAoOOOo OH OO., OO. HO. OO. OO. NH. OO. OO. OO. .OHO HO.) ON.) OH.) OO. OO. OH.) HN.) OO.) OO. Huoo OuHHmOoHuon HeonOmo OH OO OO OO OO NO HO OO ON ON . HonhH oHomHuo> .HOo .Ho.ucoov .m oHnt 157 OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. AO. OO.H HO. .OHO OooOoomOOuuHo HO.) OH.) HH.) ON. OO. 00. HH.) 00. O0.) uuoo meH uHsoHOwHo Hmuoa .HDHQAHmu mm NO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. HN. HA. OO. .OHO OH.) ON.) OO. OO. HN. NH.) OO.) NO. OO. HHoO )1) oaoo HOHoH. oeoOOHOo OO OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. HO. NH. .OHO uOoOOouH>OO OO. ON. ON. OH.) OO. HN. OO. OO. OH. Huoo OHHOOO Ho OOO OzOOOHOo AO OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. HN. OO. .OHO OO.H NO. ON. OO.) OH. OH. OO. OO. OO. Huoo OOOHH OOOHHOoO HHHOOO OOOOOHOo OO OO. HO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. NO. .OHO NO. OO.H OH. AN.) HO.) OH. ON. OO. HO. uuoo OuOouOHuOoo OHOOHHdHouHO zooOHOo OO OO. HO. OO. ON. HH. OO. OO. ON. .OHO OouHooeHa ON. OH. OO.H HN.) AO.) OH. OO. OO. AO. Huoo OOHHOOO oHHOo OOHHOHHOZ AOOzOHOo OO OO. OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. OH. OO. .OHO OO.) AN.) HN.) OO.H OH. OO.) AN.) OO.) OO.) uuoo oOHHdHoOHo HouHmOOO OOOONHOO OO NO. OO. ON. OO. HO. OO. OO. AH. .OHO OH. HO.) AO.) OH. OO.H OH. HO.) OO. OO. uuoo oOHHdHoOHO HeuoH>OOom .OOOONHOO NO OO. NO. HH. OH. HO. OO. OO. OO. .OHO OH. OH. OH. OO.) OH. OO.H OH. OO.) OO. uuoo oOHHdHomHO HOOHOO. OOO>NHOo HO OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO.H ON. .OHO OO. ON. OO. AN.) HO.) OH. OO.H OO. AO. Huoo OOOOHOHOO OHOOOO OOOOHHOO OO HN. OO. OO. OH. OO. OO. OO.H OO. .OHO OO. OO. OO. OO.) OO. OO.) OO. OO.H OO. Huoo o>HOOHHOH OOAzHOOo ON OO. NO. ON. OO. AH. OO. ON. OO. .OHO OO. HO. AO. OO.) OO. OO. AO. OO. OO.H Huoo OOOOOoxO .anxOOOo ON OO OO OO OO NO HO OO ON ON Hoooa oHOOHHHS .HOo .Ho.HOouO .O oHnOA 158 OA. OO. OH. .OHO NO.) NH.) OO. Huoo OHHHHOOHuoO «HooOOOo OH NO. OO. OO. .OHO OH. HN. mH.) uuoo ouoom EOHQoum HOHOB mmBOmUz NH HO. HO. OO. .OHO OH. OH. NH.) HHOO mEoHQon Honuo mAOOmo HH OO. OO. HO. .OHO NH. OH. OH.) Huou OCHNHHMCHouxm meOmo OH HO. OO. OO. .OHO AH. MN. OH.) HHOU H0H>mnwm O>Huoduummo mBmMQOmU O HN. HO. OO. .OHO Oo. OH. OH.) Huoo HOHbmnom o>Hmmoumo<. mmmOHOmo O AO. OO. OO. .OHO HH. OH. HN.) Huoo .l),- oHO OHHQON OHOOHO OHOOOON A OO. OO. OO. .OHO .1): Oo.) ON. OH.) HHoo OOHHHOOO Hoboz 3“..ch mHoszo O OH. OO. OO. .OHO Oo.) mm.) Oo. Huou oEoocH Hmscc< AHHEOM MQMHHNod Hm OO. OH. OO. .OHO OO. OO. OH. Huoo HOoOOoHdeO OHOOHO. OOOHNoOO O HH. A0. 00. .mHm oHocomsom OH.) HH.) OH.) Huoo OH OHHOOO Ho Honeaz AHooOHOo H” mo. OO. No. .OHm oHonomsom NH. OO. OH.) Huoo OH OOHOHHOo Ho Honedz_ .mHHOoHOo NH OO. OA. NO. .OHO OH. NO. HO.) uuoo Hoeuoz Ho ooO AszHOO .H OO OO AO .HOOOH oHOOHHo> .HOo .Ho.Hcoov .O anme 159 OO. HO. ON. .OHO OO.) OH. AO. Huoo ooOooHOo OOHOOOOo AN OO. OO. OH. .OHO OO. HO. OO. Huoo AHH>HHu< HOHoO AoOAOOOo ON NO . HH . HH . . mflm mHOUW UHMUCMUW OUHmOQEOU OH.) OH.) OH. HHoo HoH>OOom o>HHOOOO. OOOOOAoO ON OO. OO. HH. .OHO ouooO OH.) HO.) OH. Huoo OHOOOOHO OHHHHO Houoz. OOAozAOO ON OO. HH. OO. .OHO ououO OH.) OH.) OH. HHoo oHOOOOHO OoHHONHHOHuoO OHooOAom ON mm. mm. OA. .OHm ouoom Cumocmum OO.) OO. NO. uHoo OHHHHO OOH>HH OHHOO AOOHvoO NN MO. mN. Om. .OHm ouoom OO.) OO. OO. uuoo OHOOOOHO OoHuOuHOOOOoo OzzooAOO HN OH. OO. HA. .OHO OO.) OO.) NO.) uHoo HOOHOHO OOOHOOOo ON OO. OO. OO. .OHO )) NO.) ON.) OH. HHoo - OHdOoo HOzooOOo OH OO. OO. OO. .OHO -,)) NN.) OH.) HH. Huoo mooudxm OOOxOOOo OH OO. OO. HO. .OHO OO.) ON.) OH. Huoo OHHHHHOOuooO OOooOOOo AH OO. HO. OO. .OHO ooOouOHOHOO NH.) OH.) OH. uuoo )OOOO OoHHOOHHO. zOAAOOOo OH OO. OH. OH. .OHO HO. OO.) OO. Huoo OHH>HHoO. _>HAoOOOo OH OO. OO. OO. .OHO ON. HN. ON.) uuoo OHHHOOoHHoOO HAoszOo OH OO OO AO HOOOH OHOOHHO> .HOo .iO.HOoov .O OHoOH 160 oo. oo. .OHm moocmumEdoHHu OO.H Om. mN.I HHOU OMHA UHDUHMMHQ HQUOB BUAQhHmU mm OO. NO. .OHO OO. OO.H OH.) Huoo Odoo HOHoH. oAOAOHOo OO 00 . NO . . munm UCOECOHH>CM ON.) OH.) OO.H Huoo AHHHOOO Ho OHHHm mzHEOHmo Am OO. NO. OO. .OHO HO.) OH.) OO. uHoo uOouH OOOHuOoO OHHOOO OOOOOHOo OO OO. OO. OO. .OHO OH.) ON.) ON. Huoo .AOCOHOHOGOO AHOGHHQHOOHQ ZOUMHmU mm Oo. OO. 00. .OHm II) OOOHHOOHO HH.) 00. ON. H.Hoo )WHHHHoom oHHno OOHHHSHHHHZ AmDZOHmo Om OO. NO. OO. .OHO . ON. OO. OH.) Huoo OOHHaHuOHo HOuHOOOO OOOONHOo OO OO. OO. OO. .OHO Oo. HN. mo. HHoo OCHHQHOOHQ HOHOH>m£wm .mmmmNHmo Nm OO. OO. OO. .OHO 00. NH.) HN. HHoo onHHQHomHo Hmnuo> mmm>NHmo Hm AO. HN. OO. .OHO HH.) Oo.) mm. HHoo mmocHonm AHHEmm mmmmHHmu om OO.H HA. HO. .OHO 00. No. Oo. HHoo o>HmHHHHHHH DmBzHOmo ON HO. OO. NH. .OHO OO.) OO. OH. Huoo OOOOOUOO .mmoxOOOo ON OO OO AO HonOH oHnOHHO> .HOo .io.HOouv .O OHOOO 161 APPENDIX C Scaled Score Item Descriptives 162 .mmeHmcm uouumm AuoumEHHucoo ocHsoHHow condone Ewtht .nHoooE GOHumsqo Housuusuum CH monom now own: uoc EouHO HOHMEV mom OOH.ON ON0.0 O0.0 A0.0 N O OON oouou OOHOHHOU Hoonoooud Horuo oOomoHOe HOHOOOHO AO0.0H OH0.0 H0.0 O0.0 N O OON OouoHHOo OOOOoou o.uOoocoaooO OOomoHOO HOHon OAO.HN HO0.0 ON.O O0.0 N O OON OouoHHOu oOOOoou o.uOoocodooO OOomoHo< HOHosOHO OOO.A OOO.N OA.O N0.0 O O OON .OouoHHOu OOO)HooOoo O.HOoocoaooO oOomoHoO HOHoOO NHN.OH OOO.N O0.0 O0.0 O O OON _OouoHHOo OOO)HooOoo O.HOOOOoaOom oOomoHo< , ioHoeomv OOH.O HO0.0 O0.0 OA.O O O OON .OoHoHHOu HooOoooua n.scoocodmom mOomoHOe EH2: AHO.O OH0.0 OA.O OA.O O O OON _OouoHHOo HooOuOoua O.HOOOOoQOOO OOomoHoO OO0.0 OO0.0 H0.0 A0.0N OO AH OON Horace Ho OOO AEOOHom OHO.H) ON0.0 O0.0 OO.H N H OON ouHsoo HOHOOHOO Ho Honsaz OZOOHoO AOO.O OO0.0 O0.0 N0.0 O O OON OOHos HHOom Ho Honsaz OSOOHo< OOA.H OAO.H OA.O OO.H O H OON moHOOOH HHsom Ho Honssz OEOOHoO OH0.0) AO0.0 H0.0 OO.N O N OON OOoHHOHOOoo Ho Honedz OszHom OOO.H OOO.H OO.H O0.0 OH N OON muonsoe OHHOOH Ho Honsdz NZOOHOO OOH.O AHO H HO.N OA.O AH N OON OHOooHOou Ho Honesz HZOOHOO OA0.0 OOO.N ON.O OO.H N H OON OOOOOOOH Oosusm ozeHOOO nOHndHun> 9>HumHuonon Henna use nownmoumoaua _O H OON_ dsouo Onomo _OOOO OOOH OON_ HonOOO OoHHOuHHHuOooH OHOOz OoHuaonHquoH when one: _ seam _ om _ Oder _ an: _ OH: _ z _ Honda _ eHneHud> mo>HudHHomoo EmuH ouoom COHmom .O oHOmO 163 .mHmAHmcm Houonu huoumEHHucou mcHsoHHou Camacho Eotht .nHoooe :OHumsvo Hmusuozuun :H nonom now owns uo: EOth Aocnoumxomn ANO.O OOA.N OA.O HO.N O H OON HOHuou\uHOOHo OH HOOB OOOOHNOm OOH H) OO0.0 ON.OH N0.0H OA O OON Armor Hog Ono: Ouaor OOoe so: OooOHNOm OOO.H) OO0.0 O0.0 N0.0 H O OON HOoEOoHOeo OHOOHO OOOHNoOO OOO.H) OO0.0) O0.0 OO.H N H OON NOOOoHaOo OoO hum OOOOHNOa HOO.H) OO0.0 O0.0 O0.0 H O OON HooOoO OOHO OOOH OOOH HHOOHO ONOHNOmO AowumHQEoo HON.H OOO O OH.H NH.O A H OON notH o>OO HooOom OuOO zom OONOHNo< OAO.HN ON0.0 OH.O O0.0 H O OON HOOOOodmou Ho xom OOHOHNo< OOO.N HHO.H N0.0 O0.0 O O OON OoOoz oH Owe Ho oHuom «OxOOHOo AOO.O OAO.H OH.H OO.H A O OON OHHOOO ou OouoHHOu Ho oHuOO OOOHOHOO AOO.O OOO.H OH.H OO.H A O OON OHHOoo ou OouoHHOu Ho oHHOO OOOHOHOO AOO.O OOA O O0.0 HH.N O H OON oHoOouaoO OH OHHOOO Ho Honedz AHOOOHOo AOO.O OOO.H OO.H HO.N HH O OON oHoOooaoO OH OouoHHOu Ho Honadz OHHOoHOo H3953 OOO.NO HN0.0 ON.O O0.0 N O OON HoH ooumo OouoHHOo ommcoou Hoauo HOomoHo< HmHmEV AOO.OO OO0.0 OH.O OO.O N O OON HoH ooumu OouoHHOu OOOOOOH Hoeuo OOOOoHoO HmeEwwv How OOO.AN OH0.0 ON.O O0.0 N O OON oonoo OOHOHHOu oOO)HoOOoO Hoeuo OOOOoHom HwHwEv How ONO.NO OO0.0 AN.O O0.0 N O OON ooumo OouoHHOo OOO)HooOuO HOOHo HOOOoHom HmeEomv How OO0.00 OH0.0 O0.0 O0.0 O O OON oouou OouoHHno HooOumoud Horne OOOOoHoO puss toxm om Ono: sax OH: 2 HondH oHndHnn> .Ho.HOooO .O OHnmA .OHOAHmcm Houomu huoumEuHucoo OcHonHou oommouo EouHat .mHoooE :oHumsuo Hmusuuouum :H nonom wow owns uo: EouHa NOO.N OOO.H O0.0 NN.O N O OON OOOHOH OOO OOH ou OHOHHO OoOOOooO OHOOHO OHozHOO OON H) OAN.O NOOO HHNOH OOOOO OOON OON oOooOH HHHOOH HOOOOO OOHOOAOO oOOHHNo< wmmOHU OSHm £05m OUCMHDmCH HHO N) NNO O O0.0 OO.H N H OON OHHOOO oum>HHd o>OO 50> oo OOOHHNom AmocmusmcH nuHmoc OAO.O) OOO.H O0.0 AN.H N H OON oumuHooz Ho oHOuHooz o>mr so» on OOOHHNOa Andaman 600% no 00¢ mm coon CH6 UHHQDQ OOO.H) OOH.O O0.0 OO.H N H OON Ho Huou HOo o>Houou OoH on OOOHHNo< HOO H) OOH.O OO.H O0.0 O H OON AoOooOH OHHOOO Houou O.AHHOOO OOOHHNOO AmHanoz no home AOO.H) OON.O ON.O O0.0 O H OON on human om 50> oo Ooumo so: ONHHNoO AOSOOOOCAO Ho .wHQEwu .msqmoE NAO.H) HAO.O O0.0 HO.H N H OON .OquOo O Ho Honeoe O so» ouO ONHHNOO OO0.0 OOO.H AH.H OH.N O H OON Ahaudum HOHHqu HOoquo OHHHNOm AOO O OOH.O O0.0 HH.H O H OON NoOoO HOoH OH ohms OOOOOOOH OOOOHNOO Aocsoumxomn HMHUMH HOO NH NO0.0 OA.O OO.H O H OON oHOOHo o_oHHru uOoO OH Hons OOOOHNo< OAO.O HAO H) O0.0 H0.0 H O OON HuoHn HHOOHO OOOHNOOO uwau :oxm am can! Nd! cw: 2 Honda OHnnHHJ> .Ho.HOooO .O anmB 165 .mHOAHMCm uouumw AuounEHHuCoo OCHsoHHow oomaouo euthO .meooE CoHumon Hmusuosuum CH OCHmom now own: uOC Emth onm uoc OOO.om oom.m MN.o O0.0 N o OON Cmnz mHoon omooH Ho moCHHmHo mOOHOo¢« CoHoHHCo HmCuo Ho AHHEmw no: ONm.N OOO.H HO.o om.o N o OON OH: on OCHOCoHon mOCHCu wAOHumoo moOHOo< OOO.H OOA.H O0.0 Nm.o N o OON OOCHCU C30 no: OH: mxouumoo moAHOod OHO.H) OmO.o mm.o OA.O N o OON AHoumHowEEH umE on umCE moCmEoo OCOHOo< OAH.o O0H.H HO.o mO.o N o OON quHmoQ woE u.Cwmoo rooummHumCou mONHOomt OON.O) AOO H HA.O O0.0 N O OON OHOO madam OHHOOHOOoo OoHHOOOO uCooCmawo OHN.H) OHO.o HO.o OA.O N o OON oou Ho muHCom on mmCHHo mUOHO04O OHnHoo mOm.O) OOO.H OA.O Nm.o N o OON u.Con umnu mOCHCu Co msono mQOOOo< 30C OCHCu>H0>w OOO.H) mOH.0) O0.0 OH.H N o OON mquz NOCHuHmz oCmum u.CmO moOOOomC ocmum u.CmO mUAOOow ecu CH mHoCuo OCHxOOH moHo>€ mUOOOomO yuan Boxm am C602 CO! 2 Honda OHAoOHd> .Ho.HOoov .O wHQmB 166 .mHmzHMCm uouomm AuoumEHHucoo OCHSOHHOM oommouo EouH: .mHmooOH COHumsHow Hmusuosuum CH memum now own: uOC :5th OOH H) OOO O) OA.O HO.H N O OON OOHOHOHo>o oHOH ouoo OOOOOoO OOO.H OOO.H H0.0 H0.0 N O OON OHOOHH OOOH OH ouoo OOOOOo< OAO.O OOO.H OO.O O0.0 N O OON OOoHd uOooHooO .HoH O HHOO uuoo OoOOOoOO OOO.H) NOH.O) OA.O OO.H N O OON HHOO OHHOOO oum OOOHHOOO OoOOOomO moomHm Ho .mCOHumsuHm ONO.O OOO.H OO.O O0.0 N O OON .OHOOHOO OHouuou OHOOO OoNOOOOO mucosa OCHCCHUCH HOC looow Ho: OOO.AH OON.O AO.O O0.0 N O OON mum HOOH OOOHOH OHOHHO Ho OHOO OOHOOo< HOO.H) OOO O) NO.O NO.H N O OON maoHOoO HHHOOO OOOOOom OOO.H) OOO.O OA.O NA.O N O OON oouOHHOOHH OHHOOO OOONOoO OAO.ON HOO.O NO.O OO.O N O OON oOoO Ho uOo oO ou HOoz u.Ouooo OoONOOmO OCH>maQmHE Hmumm OOO.N OOA.H AO.O OO.O N O OON HHHHOO HOOH ou Ooom u.Ooooo OoANOoor on son socx H.Omooo OOONOOOO OouoHHOu OOO.O OOO.N OO.O OH.O N O OON Hoauo OOH: OOoHO Hoe H.Omooo OoONOoO) ONA.O HOO.N HO.O ON.O N O OON HHoz uoo H.Omooo OOONOOOO Hon EH: on OHO.N OOO.H OO.O ON.O N O OON HHOH OHdood Owes HOOOOO H.Omooo OoONOo .Ho.HOooO .O OHQOO 167 .mHmaHmcm uouomw AmounfiuHuCoo OCHonHow Common“. EouH: .MHOUOE fiOflUM—HUO HMHHHUUHHHUD CH mflflflon HON UOMD DOC EUUHI Anon no OA0.0 NOO H A0.0 A0.0 N O OON OHHOO Horuo Ho OHHO .oooO OHOHO OoOOOOOO OOO OH OO0.0 H0.0 O0.0 N O OON OHdooC Oxomuuo OHHouHOOOO OoOOOooO Hozon HOHOHON OoNOOOmO HO0.00 HN0.0 AN.O O0.0 N O OON HOOHozuo>o OoHOOoae OO0.0H OO0.0 O0.0 OH.O N O OON oouHuuo>o OoOOOoo OoOOOOmO NOO.O OOO.N O0.0 ON.O N O OON OOHoEuOOHz OoOOOoar ON0.00 ON0.0 NN.O O0.0 N O OON omOou Ho .OOOHuo OOHO .hso>Hoz OoAOOoOO OHO.OO AAO.O OH.O N0.0 N O OON OOHOoHqu Ho OuOoOo>oO uao>Hoz OoOOOo .Ho.HOooO .m OHQME 168 .nHmAHmcn uouomu huoumEuHuCoo OCHonHou oomnouo 50th.. .3365 CoHumCUo Housuonuun CH monuo no“ Con: uoc Sour Hun: ONH.H OHO.H O0.0 Om.o N o OON OCHuuom no menu oHuuHH oou mzonm mUNAOoHmC0QmouCC meom mUAOOomr mOH.Hl OO0.0 O0.0 O0.0 N o OON uoH m mEmouom GNOOOo< NOO.o NOO.H O0.0 O0.0 N o OON OCHCHmHu umHHou mumHmom momOOodt OHN.O OMH.H N0.0 MO.o N o OON HCOHC um own on OCHOO mumHmmm mUOOOodt OOH.NN OAA.O O0.0 O0.0 N o OON woos NO one: mxoou AHooumomom momOOo< OOO.NH OOm.m N0.0 O0.0 N o OON moEmm o>Huom AmHQ ou momsmom mUNOOoHuom 0C0 Eoum muwHCm AonHCO moOmOo¢ HoH>mCoQ Hon ONO.H HOO.H H0.0 mm.o N o OON wHC mOCmCo u.Cmooo quECmHCCm OCOmOom omsmo HmoHooE OOA.OO OOO.A NH.O No.0 H o OON usonqu mo>o Cqu mEOHQoum mUAmOodt OOH.O OOO.N O0.0 OH.O N o OON AOECHU Ho ooumCHoHooo AHHoom moOmOo .AC.uCOUV .O OHQMB 169 .mHmAHMCm Houumw AuouMEuHMCoo OCHonHOH Commouo EouH1 .mHoooE CoHumsvm Hmusuosuum CH anmom How Cums COC EmuH+ .HU.HCOUV AOHCCO OHUMH OOH.ANH OA0.0H OH.O No.0 N o OON Ho OCH>oE 30Hm .m>HuomuooCD mOOOOodt OAA.o Nmm.H O0.0 O0.0 N o OON o>HumHomoooCD moOOOodO OO0.0 OAo.m mO.o OH.O N o OON mCOHme no Hamumou ooa moAOOo<4 mmOCHHCmmHo mmH.O omo.m Om.o OH.O N o oON Ho mmoCumoC CCHs Cocuwocoo 009 moOOOomnon mOCmHum mUOOOods oooC AO0.0H ANA.m Om.o OH.O N o OON u.meoo OCm on mOCHCu QC mououm mUOAOooE OM0.00 OO0.0 MN.o Oo.o N o OON H0309 Cqu mAmHQ Ho mumoEm momAOo< uanC Ho CCm >mo may OCHHCU AAO.AH OO0.0 Nm.o O0.0 N o HmN COHCHHCU umoE Conn mmCH wQOOHw moOAOoOOom osHHoOHumoo omo OOOOOOOO NOO.O OOA.O HO.O NN.O ON O OON HoH>OOOO o>HomouOO omo OOOOOOOO OAA.N NOO.H OO.N OO.H HH O OON oOOHhoHO uHHOOoO omo AOzoOOOoO OOO.O ONA H OH.N OO.H OH O OON OOOHnouO dooHO omo OOOHOOOOO HON.O AAO.H ON.O AO.N NOO.ON O OON OOOHOOHHO omo OOAHOOOoO ONH.H OOO.H OH.O NO.O OH O OON ooomoudoo\msonOO omo OHxZOOOoO No>onm ooumHH OOH.OO OOO.A ON.O OO.O N O OON HoO one OOOH oOoHooud Horuo HOO OoOOHOocO OOA.OO OOO.O ON.O OO.O N O OON OOHOHuoO OoOOOOOO ouoeuo OOH: OOO.AN OOO.O ON.O OO.O N O OON _oo>Ho>OH Hoe H.Ooooo .OOOHOOHHO OoOOOoOO OON.H) NOH.O OA.O OO.O N O OON OOHOHOO OOAOOoO OOA.H) OOO O OO.O AO.O N O OON OoHHOouum Ho uoH a OHOOO OoOOOOOO ONO.OO ONO.O NN.O OO.O N O OON oOoO souH Haze ouooarz moOOOOOO NOO.O OHO.N OO.O AH.O N O OON HOOHO Ho OouHo do moxog OoOOOO«O Homsmo HCOHooE OHO.OO AAO.O OH.O NO.O N O OON HooOquO do OOHzouOH .OOHHHOo> OoOOOoOO mCO H u MSU H... m OOH.O NAO.O HO.O OH.O N O OON Ho OHdooO soc Oh Home: OoNOOOmO OOO.O) ON0.0 AA.O AO.O N O OON oaoH OHHOOoOOO OOHOOOO OAO.HN ON0.0 OH.O O0.0 H O OON oouaoudoo Ho .oem .OOOOOOO OoOOOO«O uHHHM sou—m am Cue! we! CH2 2 H03 0.274....»de .Ho.HOooO .O OHOOA 171 .nHOAHmCm uouoou AHOuMEHHuCou OCHonHou Camacho BouHOO .nHoooe COHumCUo Housuosuum CH nonom How Con: uOC Enth oEHu mo mCoHHwQ OCOH How OOH.H) ON0.0) AO.H OO.N O H OON Oou OHOOHO O OH: OOO.HOH OHHOo OOOHOOOHI AHSOHO mo>oE AHHmsmC OO0.0 mNN.N) OO.H H0.0 m H OON onm on runonm mo>oE CHHCQ comB BdemoCm OCHCHOE ecu CH QC moxms mCm on no OOA.O OHH.N) O0.0 mm.O m H OON coom mm OCHCCCH oCm mwo mH CHHCU ACOHmom moco o>Huom muoE ou mosmm ON0.0) Aom.0) MN.H O0.0 m H OON o>HuomCH tustq muououm CHHCU ACOHmommOt HNO.AH OO0.0) O0.0 N0.0 m H OON om onu Co m>m3Hm mH oHHCo BCNHmofi OO0.0 OON.O) O0.0 N0.0 O N OON oHHOOHOOo Hug OH OHHOo AOHHOOOH OOA.O) OOA.O OO.H ON.N m H OON meuo CCm mommsm couwo oHHCO ZMOHmoC OON.H) OHO.o NO.H OO.N m H OON AHHmmm OOHHU CHHCU EMOomo< OOO.H) OOH.O) OO.H O0.0 m H OON Human con: AHmCouCH muomou oHHCo szomod HmcoHuoEw OOO.H) HO0.0 OO.H OA.N m H OON umnzwfiom on 0» moCmp CHHCU zonmoC HOO.H) OOH.O OO.H OO.N m H OON AHHmmo Home: muom CHHCU szomo< ON0.0) AO0.0) mN.H Om.m m H OON Age on 0» mCCou CHHCO ommomodmtr muomCmnum ou as OON.H) HOH.o OO.H OA.N m H OON Enos 0» oEHu OCOH m moxmu CHHCO OmOomoCm OOA.O AON.H) OO.H ON.O m H OON OHQmHoom AHo> nH oHHCo ommomom mumocouum MO0.0) OOA.O) HO.H OA.O m H OON Cqu AHCCOHHO Ano> mH CHHCU OmNomo< ON0.0 OOA.H) O0.0 O0.0 m H OON OHHHOHOo moCoHHu moxmfi oHHCU omHomo¢ huouCo>CH ucofiduomfida OCUHOHOU 0:9 Hana _ 39?. om _ and: _ an: _ OH: _ z _ H043 _ eHnded> .Ho.HOooO .O OHQOO 172 .mHOAHmcm Houomw OuoumfiuHuCoo OCHIOHHON Commouo EuuH: .mHoUoOH COHumHHvo Housuosuum CH monom now owns HOC OHO.OO;a OOO.O) OOO.O) OO.O OO.O O H OON OUOOHOHOHOO)OOOO OoHudmOOHHO Heo zOOOOOOo OOO.A HOO.N) OO.O NA.O O AOO.H OON HHH>HHoO Heo >HeoOOOO2 OOHOOOH Odoum oHHOo OOONOoO czoo mEHmo AHHUHCU CHHCU OCOHumsuHm ONA.O) HAO.O) ON.H OA.O O H OON OdouOOOOOO Oo On Home: eons OONNOo< CouomuumHo AHHmmo on Cmo mam HOH.O) AOO H) ON.H O0.0 O H OON or .OOHOuu ouumum oHHOo Ho>ocorz OOHNOom AHHmmw ouHCq QC mo>mw NNO.O) OOO.O) ON.H AA.O O H OON OHHOu .Hou HHOoHHHHo o OHHO OOONOoOO CououCCooCo mum moHuHConwHo AHO.O) OHO.O) HN.H OO.O O H OON cor: OHHOOO do mosHO OHHOo OOOHOOeO AonHCU AHO.O) ONO.O HN.H ON.N O H OON Oou oH Oou OouH mooO oHHOo OOOHOoOOOO stmmwoosm OON.O ON0.0) OO.H O0.0 O H OON HHHOO OOOH O Ho OuuHouod oHHOo OOAHOOm HHS” 303m am C602 CH2 2 Honda oHndHHd> .Ho.uOouO .O OHCOO 173 .mHm>HMCo uouoou AuouoEuHuCoo OCHsoHHou Commouo soqua .mHoooE COHuosvo Honouosuuo CH ooHooo uou Como no: EouH. mucoz one on Con: usono OOO.m OOO.N) MO.o OO.N m H OON uuoHHo CCm Como mH nCHHno one meOOo< moHuH>Huoo Honuo Ho moEoO OHA.O) OO0.0 O0.0 OO.H m H OON CH Cusu Hon mHn muHoz uCHHno one OUOOOoC Comm: oum Aonu Con: muonuo uuowEoo ou moHHu tmmouumHo m.CoHoHHno Honuo oumzou OAH.O) OO0.0) A0.0 AO.N m H OON UHuonuonQEAO mH nCHHno one xmAOOo< CoHuCouuo nOCOCo Aom u.Coooo nonuoE OOO.H) mAm.0) mA.o NN.N m H OON Con3 uomms muom uCHHno one moOOOo< moEom AO0.0) OHN.O) O0.0 ON.N m H OON CH moHCH msoHHom nCHHno one OUOOOod AoHQ ou oEoo o How oooH no no>Hm Con: mConm Ho .muooHConm mmsunm mmm.0) Omo.H MA.o NO.H m H OON .uoow omfioum ransom uCHHno one mQOOOom uCOHHQEoo HO0.0) OOH.O) O0.0 AO.N m H OON ono ucoHoono OH uoHHno one OUmOOo< CoHoHHno OOO.H HOO.H) O0.0 oA.N m H OON Honuo ou HCOQHon mH nCHHno one OUNOOoC mOCHHoow HON.m HOO.H) A0.0 OA.N m H OON .muonuo monoumuoocs ”CHHno one meoOod hHouC0>CH HOH>onom HeHoom 0>Humdu¢ one OOO.O) _OOO.O) _OO.O _O0.0 _O _N.H _OON fl HHHHHOOOuooO Heo_ :AooOOOo puns _ soda _ am _ Ono: _ an: _OHz _ z _ Honda _ oHndHud> .io.uOooO .O OHooe 174 .mHmeHoCo uouomw enouoEHchoo OCHsoHHow Commouo Boqut .mHoooe COHuosvo Hounuonnuo CH moHouu How poms uOC EouHO mCOHmmommom OOA.O) OO0.0) A0.0 AO.N H OON Ho meow mononm ”CHHnU one OOONOo< noHoHHnu Honuo nqu OOA.N OOO.H) O0.0 OA.N H OON mnHou oCo moEoO mHHO.HOH "CHHno one meHOo< OCHOO NO0.0) AO0.0) A0.0 OO.N H OON lxmoo oCo OHHoo oH noHHno one ooOHOoC noHoHHno Honuo nqu moHQ OOO.m OOH.Nl O0.0 OA.N H OON om ou mono: Ho mnoo HoHHno one xmAHOo< OO0.0 OOO.H) O0.0 OO.N H OON so» HOOOHBOOOHC uOoO "OHHOU OO.H. xOOHOOHH moHCu AHHEom OON.o) OA0.0) A0.0 OO.N H OON Ho oHonomCon oonHom uoHHno one oomHOom muonuo nouoz pose on monou OO0.0) NA0.0) OA.O OO.N H OON .ooHuH>Huoo HOHoom CH uoHHno one meHOodm muonuo noun: Cash on mocou mm0.0) NA0.0 OA.O AO.H H OON OmoHuH>Huoo HOHoom CH HoHHno one mmOHOo< OCHAOHQ CouoHHno HO0.0 OOO.N) O0.0 OA.N H OON Ho dOouO m OHo.O HHH: ”OHHOo OO.H xOOHOOm muonuo ou mOCHnu HON.O) OOO.H) HA.O OO.N H OON AHCCoHHH no ooHC m>om uoHHno one OUNHOo< Hon EHn ou COHuCouuo Ame ou CoHoHHno OON.O) OO0.0) O0.0 OO.N H OON Honuo Com AHHwoo Coo uCHHno one meHOoC mumosoou muCoHom mOm.o) NO0.0) A0.0 HO.N H OON nuH3 monouoaooo uoHHno one OOOHOom HACK :oxm am Can! CH2 2 Honda OHACHHC> . no. uCoov .O oHnme 175 .mHOAHmCo Houuom AHOCMEHHOCOU OCH30HHou Commouo EouHOO .mHoooE COHuoCUo Housuosuum CH ooHoom Hem Com: HOC eouHe mCOHomommom OOA.O) OO0.0) A0.0 AO.N H OON Ho meow moumnm "CHHno one OOONOo< CoHoHHno Honuo nqu MOA.N OOO.H) O0.0 OA.N H OON mnHou oCo moEom oOHOHOH uCHHno one meHOoC OCHOO NO0.0) AO0.0) A0.0 OO.N H OON lemoo CCm EHoo OH uCHHno one OOOHOo¢ CoHoHHno Honuo nuHs AmHQ OOO.m OOH.Nl mm.o OA.N H OON 0O ou muCos Ho mnoo noHHno one xmAHOo< OOO.O OOO.H) OO.O OO.N H OON OotH HOOOH\OOOOHO oOoO uOHHOo OOH xOOHOo< ooHCH OHHEom OON.O) OA0.0) A0.0 OO.N H OON Ho oHonomCon oonHow HoHHno one OOmHOod muonuo nouoz pooh ou moCou mm0.0) NA0.0) OA.O OO.N H OON .moHuH>Huoo HoHoom CH "oHHno one meHOo¢m muonuo noun: Hose ou ooCou OO0.0) NA0.0 OA.O AO.H H OON .moHuH>Huoo HOHoom CH noHHno one mmOHOoC OCHOCHQ noHoHHno HOm.m OOO.N) O0.0 OA.N H OON Ho QCOHO m CHOO HHH3 noHHno one xmmHOo< muonuo ou omCHnu HON.O) OOO.H) HA.O OO.N H OON AHoCoHHH Co ooHC meow noHHno one ooNHOo< Hon EHn ou COHuCouuo Ame on CoHoHHno OON.O) OO0.0) O0.0 OO.N H OON Honuo uoO AHHmoo Coo nCHHno one meHOo< mumosvon mucouom OO0.0) NO0.0) A0.0 HO.N H OON nqu mououomooo uCHHno one ovoHOo¢ uuaz Bonn om Coox CH2 2 Honda oHndHHd> .Ho.HOooO .O OHOOO 175 .OHoAHoCo uouomu OuouoEunCoo OCHzOHHou Commouo EouHat .mHoooE COHuoCUo Housuoouun CH moHoon How Cons no: Coth mHooA OON.O) ONO O ON.H OO.N O H OON >Haoo OOO OHHHHO OOH>HH »HHOO »OHOAoHaoo woo OoHHOOHOOCOoo OHzovo<1 nCoH oHHuCooHoQ OON.O) OO0.0) OO.AN OO.HA OOH O OON ouHoodOou eon o>HuOOOO OOOOAOmO NOO.O) ONO.O) OO.ON HN.OO OOH H OON OOOH oHHuOooHOO OHHHOO uouoz ONOonOO OOH.O) OOO.O) AN.ON NA.AO OOH H OON OOOH oHHuOoouoo OoHHoNHHOHoom NooOAoet OOO.O) NOA.O) OO.ON OO.OO OOH O OON OHHHOouHOO OHHHHO OOH>HH »HHOO OOHOAOOO OOO.H) NNO.O) HO.ON NO.NO OOH O OON OOOH oHHuOoouod OoHHooHOOEEoo OOzooAOOO NOO H) NAO.O) OO.O OO.O HH O OON uOuOoO HooHOoHoOouOo ozHOvoOH AOA.O) AOO.O H0.0 OH.N O H OON muoo» HOuHooHoOouOo O»HOoAOmO OON.O OAO O) OO.OH NO.OHH OOH AO OON ouooo ouoooouo OHHHHO Houoz OmeooneO NOO.O) OAN.O HN.HH NA.OO NA ON OON ouooo sou OHHHOO Houoz OmeozAOa) OOO.H ONH.O OO.OH NO.OOH OOH OO OON ouoou euoocouo OoHuoNHHOHooO OHooOAoOO OOA O) OON O OA HH OO.OO OO ON OON ouooo sou OoHuoNHHoHooO OHooOAOOH wHOUm OOO.O OHN.O) AH OH OA.OHH OOH OO OON ouoocouo OHHHHO OOH>HH »HHoo OOOHOAoOO OOA.O) OAO.O ON.HN OO.OO HHH ON OON ouooo sou OHHHHO OOH>HH »HHOO OOOHOAOOO NOO.O OOH.O) ON.OH AO.OOH OOH OO OON ouoom OHOOOOHO OoHuooHOsOOoo OzzooAOeO OOH H) ONO.O) ON.AH ON.OO OOH ON OON ouoom zmu OoHHouHOOOCoo OzzooAOOO HOO.H) OON.O OO.O OO.O H O OON xou OHHOo OOOHOOH> HHOOOAOOO OON homo Ouan OHHOu OOOHOOH> HHOoonOO OON ouoo on>uouOH OOOHOOH> OOzH>AoOO OOH.H) OOO.O OO.O AH.A OH H OON OH Ooumn OOOHOOH> oOOO>Aomr n0Hdom H0H>unom 0>Humdu¢ UCdHOCH> 0C8 page F :oxm am _ Odor _ an: _ OH: _ z _ Hanan _ oHndHud> .Ho.ucoov .O oHnme 177 .mHo>HoCC Houomu >uoumEHHuCoo OCHonHou Doggone EouH: .mHoooOH COHuoHHUo Housuoauuo CH moHooo HO.H Com: uOC Eoth Omezoz >HOOO OAA O) OOO.O OO.NH OH.AO AO OH OON OOO ouHoodOoo HoHsonon o>HuOoo< OOOOOAOeO OO0.0 OO0.0 O0.0H OO.AO OA OH OON Omezoz >Haoo OOO OHHHHO Hobo: OOOzAOOO HNA.O) AOO.O O0.0H OO.AO NA HH OON Omezoz >HOOO OOO OoHuoNHHOHuoO OOooOAOOO AO0.0) OOA.O OO OH OO.AO OA OH OON Omezoz >Hsoo OOO OOO OOOHOAOe) HNO.O) OOO.O AO.OH HO.OO OO OH OON Omezoz >HOOo OOO OoHuooHOOCCoo OOzooAOOO OOO.O) NOO O OO.O OO.HO OO AH OON Omezoz oHHOu Ho OOO OoHOo zoOOvoOO OHOUw bumficmum ONO.O OHO.O) OO.OH OO.NHH OOH AO OON ouHooosoo HoHsoeoo o>HuOOOO OOOOOAoHseo OOO ouHoodOoo eon o>HuCOOO onOOAOOH OOA.OO OOO.O OO.O NO.O OO O OON oOoOoO >Haoo OOO OHHHHO uoHoz ononOO OON.H) OOH.O OO.O OH.O HH O OON mOuOoO >Haoo OOO OoHHoNHHOHooO zooOAOOO mnuCoE OOO.H- OOO.O) AO.O OA.O HH O OON >HOOO OOO OHHHOO OOH>HH »HHoo zOHOAOOO AOH H) OH0.0) ON.O OO.O HH O OON OOuOoO >Haoo OOO OoHuooHOaOOoo ozzovo<) muooe ONO.O) HOO.O NH.H OO.N O H OON >Haeo OOO ouHOodOoo OOO o>HuOOo< HOOOAOOI OON.O) OOA.O AH.H OO.N O H OON ouoo» >HOOo OOO OHHHOO Houoz OHOoneO OOO.O) OO0.0 OH.H OO.N O O OON muoo» >HOOo OOO coHHONHHoHooO OooOAo<1 Hung scam do One: an: OH: 2 Honda oHnaHuu> .Ho.HOooO .O oHnme 178 .OHOAHOCC Houoom enouoeuHmCou OCHonHom Commouo EouHOO .OHoooE CoHuoCUo HouCuoCHuo CH ooHooo now Coos COC EouHO oEoHnoum OHn OCHooH con: Co>o OCouum OCHon mo oOCoo o AOO.H -OON.H) N0.0 -mm.m O H ,OON mon AHOECH onu mHnu mH one» son mmHOHHm nnOCHUudm hHflEuh OOm.ON OOO.m OA.N OO.H ON O OON o>HmCHuCH DmezHOmU OHN.O) OO0.0) OO.HH OA.Om OO O OON omconoxm «mumemo OOH.O) OOH.O) O0.0 O0.0N OO NH OON ooCooHCw moHDwOmu OO0.0) ONm.O) H0.0 Om.ON OO OH OON OuH>Hu04 uCHOO eodeOOmo Am0.0) OON.O) OH.O A0.0 ON O OON OCHCCHCCOU oEone oeoH>O< Am0.0) OON.O) OH.O A0.0 ON O OON muod o>HumoHCCEEoo HOCOHuCouCH <0HOH>Om NH0.0 OH0.0 NN.O O0.0 ON O OON OCHCOHU HOCOHm HumaH>OCOO OO0.0N OON.O) N0.0 N0.0H ON OH OON COHquHoHuHom mnmoH>OC OO0.0) OO0.0) O0.0 ON.NH ON O OON CoHuoHuHCH HzHoH>OC OH0.0) mO0.0) A0.0 OH.OH ON O OON CoHuouHHHoom o¢moH>O< OOm.ON OO0.0 OA.N OO.H ON O OON omoCo>HmCCuCH ezHoH>OC OO0.0 OA0.0) A0.0 O0.0H ON O OON mooCo>HuooHHo mHQQH>OC OON.O AH0.0) ON.O O0.0H ON H OON »oOOOOHHOoo ooOoCmoO omoH>OO OO0.0 HOO.N N0.0 HH.H N H OON oOOCOCoH oooH> zOn OON ouoo OOHooo OOOH>OO« OO0.0) NNH.O O0.0 O0.0 OH H OON HonECC 3oH>HouCH mOoH>Oom NHN.H) AON.O O0.0 ON.OH Nm H OON HonECC oaoe NOoH>O0¢ HNm.H) AHH.O) OA.H O0.0 O H OON Hooou HOoH>Ood HCOHHOCMOUCH ede Cami» OOUH>V coco COHuoewouCH HdHoom quMCHlucouem one as _ .1. _ a... _ is _ 3. _ .5. _ z _ His _ .233. .Ho.HOooO .O oHnoe 179 .oHoeHoCo wouoom xuouoEuHuCoo OCHsoHHou Commouo EouHOt .OHoooE CoHuosvo HouCuoCHuo CH ooHo0o Com Coos uoc EouHO HmA.H NHN.H) O0.0 OO.m mAm.H OON ouoom mooCHouom AHHEom ooEECm mmthHmU OOH.O mmH.Hl O0.0 ON.m OON xoCH oCo muCooHooo An ooHHouuCoo ouo mobHH HCo Conn oNHHoou o3 mHnu mH oCHu 30m mmOHHHmm ONN.O OAH.H) O0.0 ON.m OON xoCH own on one one Common umnu oOCHnu AmmonCC one no uooE mHnu mH oCHu son thOHHmm AOO.H NOO.H) O0.0 mm.m OON mEoHnoum o>Hom on Conuomou nuoz o3 OHnu OH oCHu 30m IhOOHHm mmN.o Hmo.Hl H0.0 mm.m OON muoou CCo .muHCn .mEoHnoua m.Honuo nooo on CoumHH o3 mHnu OH one» son mmAOHHm OAA.N mOA.Hl A0.0 0O.m OON Hon: Houuoe 0C Honuo nooo QHon oCo Conuomou o>HHum o3 mHnu mH onuu so: thOHHm OOm.O OOm.Nl Nm.o mA.m OON Honuooou xuo3 o3 HH Coupon onu Com uCo xwos HHH: oOCHnu OHnu mH oCHu 30m memOHHm ONm.m mmO.Nl OA.O OO.m OON EoHnoum HonHOCo o>H>HCm COCCoo o3 mHnu mH oCHu 30m EhOOHHmmsa OOm.H MNm.H) N0.0 Am.m OON oooC Ho moEHu CH Conuo nomo Co uCCoo Coo uCn oouoo mxozHo u.Coo o3 man OH oCHu 30m mMMOHHm Hafiz sdxm Om CH2 Honda eHneHue> .Ho.HOooO .O oHDme 180 .OHoeHoCo Couoou >HouosuHuCoo OCHsoHHou ooaaouo CouHee .OHoooE CoHuvao Housuosuuo CH moHooo Now non: COC CouHO ACOHuooHHo on» poomou Ho OHOH OOH Ho 320 OOH OOHCOO so» AOA.O OOO.N) O0.0 O0.0 O H OON .CHCox .ovoQOOHo oOn oHHno one Q>AOmNHm AoHHno on» no HHo> Ho Eoouom 50> HNO.H NON.H OA.O OO.H O H OON _CHCos .ovoQOOHo non CHHno one amOo¢NHm AmComooH Coo» uCono oHHno on xHoe so» OOH.O OOH.H) O0.0 Om.m O H OON .oHCos .ovonomHo non oHHno one. o>mofiNHmst NOHHOu OOH HHO Ho HOOCO so» OAA.O Hom.N OA.O Om.H O H OON CHCOS .ooOoCOOHo mon CHHno one. omOofiNHmOO New: oEom CH HonEHn ouoHOOH Ho Boon ou CHHno onu oCom 50A OO0.0 HOm.H HO.H mO.H O H OON oHCoz .ooeonomHo oon oHHno one ommodNHm Nouono HMCOHuHooo Co Coo Ho .Ooxo OCHnuoEom oxoe 90> OH0.0) OOA.O OH.H AO.H O H OON oHCoz .oomonomHo mon oHHno one omNoaNHm OOO COHuoCuHm on» uoH 50A AOA.H OHm.H O0.0 mO.H O H OON .oHCos .ooxonomHo mon oHHno one_ o>HodNHmea muouCo>CH nCOHnCQEHo OCHuCOHdm anon _ seam _ om _ Oder _ we: _ OH: _ z _ Honda _ eHneHue> .Ho.uCoov .O OHnme 181 .nHm>HoCm nouoou >uoquuHuCoo mCHonHom uommouv EouH*a .mHouoe CoHum5vo Hmu5u05uum CH moHMUm now nom5 u0C EouH* Hmb.OH mmm.mn CO.o mm.m 0mm wCOHuooHHU onu poomou H0 oH5H m0 UHHnU onu UCHEoH 50> 0H503 .oCHHmHHomHU oCHu5U >mm0m mofiooon UHHnU one D>OHmNHm mmo.o Hmm.o mm.o me.H omm mvHHao may um HHma no Emouom 50> 0H503 .oCHHmHHomHU oCHH50 >mmmm moEOUon UHHnU one QmMHmNHm Hom.w mom.ml mm.o mb.m 0mm meommou 550nm UHHno onu on meu so» anoz .mcHHCHHomHu mCHH5U >mmmm moEOOon 0Hflno one Q>NHmNHm omm.ou mmm.o mm.o Hm.H 0mm mvanU onu an 50 memm 50> 0H503 .oCHHQHHomHU mCHu50 >mmmm mofiooon UHHnU one omHHmNHm mOm.HI emm.o mH.H mm.m 0mm wuonEHn ouMHomH no 8005 05 CHHno on» 0Com 50> UH503 .oCHHQHHUmHU OCHC50 >mmmm moEOUon 0HHn0 one DmOHmNHm omO.HI mmo.o mH.H mm.m 0mm mononu muuxo Co 000 no >m3o OCHnuofiom oxmu 50> 0H503 oCHHQHHomHU mCHH5U >mmmm mofiouon UHHno one ammomNHm mmF.MO OmO.m mm.o OO.H 0mm woo COHum5uHm wnu uwg 50> anoz .mcflHaHHomHv oCHH50 >mmMm mofiouon UHHno one Q>momNHm«& flunk :oxm Om CHE HOAIA canaaun> .An.ucoov .m oHnme 182 .on>HmCo uouoou >uouoauHuC00 mCHsoHHom nomaouv EouH¢¢ .mHouoa CoHuo5vo Hmu5u05uum CH moHoom How vom5 50C EouH; HHm.mbH OOm.NH OH.O HO.H 0mm mom CoHum5uHm onu uoH 50> .>0u >>mon m nUHz HonuOCm man >HH5momomu5Q UHHnU one UHSO3 D>NNDNHfl£¥ Omm.mH omo.OI mm.o mm.m omm mcoHuumuHu on» umomou H0 oH5H on» no nHHao an“ ncHEmu so» vHsoz .mcHHH uzoamo mH nHHno one D>HNUNHm mmm.o mmo.H me.o Om.H omm wnHHao on» an HHo> H0 Emouum 50> 0H503 .mcHHH unosmo mH nHHnu was QmONUNHm OHm.mH www.m1 O0.0 bw.m 0mm mmCommoH 550nm OHHno one 00 meu so» anos .mcHHH unosmo «H uHHno one o>mHUNHm omm.o OON.H mm.o mm.H 0mm mUHHnu onu an no xCon 50> 0H503 .mCH>H unm5mo mH UHHnu one ommHUNHm me.HI HNN.o HH.H hm.N 0mm m>mz osom CH oUMHomH no Soon on UHHno onu 0Com 50> UH503 .mcHHH unmsmo mH UHHCU was thHUNHm NmN.HI Ono.0| no.H mm.~ 0mm wouono muuxo Co 000 no >030 mCHnuoEOm oxmu 50> 0H503 .OCHHH ucmsmu mH vHHnu was QmmHUNHm mmH.mm emo.m ON.O NO.H 0mm mom C0Hum5uHm onu uoH 50> UH503 .mcHHH pnmsmu mH vHHgo was D>mHUNHm** HHQK :oum Gm 5H2 Handn oHnuHun> .A0.5C00v .m mHnms 183 .mHm>HoCo acuomu >u0uofiuHmCoo oCHonH0u commouu aouH:r .mHouoa COHum5vo Hou5uo5uum CH moHoom How 0om5 uOC EouH; MOm.OI mmm.o mb.o mO.N O H omN oCHHmHomHQ HMH0H>onom on (mmmNHmU me.h mmm.~u eN.o wm.m O m NO.N omN oCHHQHomHa Hmnuo> on mmm>NHmu mmo.mH mmH.OI wN.o mm.m 0mm mCOHCUoHHU onu umomou H0 oH5u m0 UHHno onu UCHEou 50> 0H503 .>ou >>mon m nqu Honu0Co muHs HHHsummoausm OHHno was o>mNQNHm emN.HI meH.o mo.H mm.m 0mm mvHHno onu um HHo> H0 Eoouom 50> 0H503 .>ou >>oon m nqu HonUOCm man HHHsmmmoCusa uHHno one DthQNHm www.mm emm.m| mm.o mm.m 0mm mmcommwu usonm uHHCu map on meu 50> .>ou >>mon m nqu HonuOCm man >HHsmmmoausm uHHno one anoz o>mNQNHm mmO.HI moo.o mH.H mm.m 0mm mnHHsu may “Hg no gamma 50> .>ou >>mon m nqu nonu0Cm muHc HHHsommomusm vHHco was 05:03 ommNQNHm mOo.HI MOO.OI mo.H mm.m 0mm wHonEHn ouMHomH no Soon on UHHnU onu 0Com 50> UH503 .>ou >>mon m nqu monuOCm man HHHsmmmoausa uHHnu one omONONHm www.0I ome.ou NO.H Oo.m owm monono muuxo Co 000 H0 >mzm OCHnuofiom oxmu 50> 0H503 .>ou >>mon o nuH3 Honuonm man HHHsuwmomusa uHHno was ommmoNHm QHQK :oxm Gm CH2 Honda oHnaHun> .Av.pcoov .m oHQme 184 .nHm>HMCo Mouomu >uoumEuHuCoo OCHonHou Uommouv EouH¢y .nHovoe CoHum5Uo Hou5u05uum CH nonom How 0on5 uOC aouH¢ unm: 50> Cmnu uonmo uuo Hon\EHn mCHuuoH ouCH mMH.o ema.ou mm.o mH.m O H owm 50> xHou Coumo Coo UHHnu “50> oomoMHmm o>mnon UHHno “50> ome 0p >muoCo on» eom.on omO.o| oo.H ew.m O H omm o>mn u.C00 um5m 50> moEHuoEOm UUmOMHmm 00 pH uoH um5fl 50> 0m ~>m3m uanu u0H>mnoanE m.UHHno u50> omm.ou mOw.ou mm.o mo.m O H owm nUH3 Hmon u.Cm0 50> moEHuoEOm UUPOMHmm uoma5 H0 UonUm mH onm\on Con: mCHUCmumuo0C5 ccm HHOMEOU Co>Hm emm.mH OON.OI mm.o mm.m O H com on 0H5onm UHHno m umnu Hoou 50> zmomOMHm moCHnu C0Humo5v UCm ouonxo ou .m5oHu5o mOm.N 0mm.Hn mO.o me.m O m omm on 0u UHHno u50> ommu5ooCo 50> zmomOMHm mmH.OH Omm.mu om.o mm.m O N oom UHHno H5o> mme 0C0 m5n 50> zmoOomHm muuowwo non\mHn oumHooummm 50> umnu mOO.HH Omm.mu mm.o mm.m O N omm mzocx UHHno onu on5m ome 50> zmomomHm moHn50uu Con\mHn 550nm NHm.m NmH.Nu mO.o ow.m O m owm meu 00 UHHno H50> ommu500Co 50> szNOMHm nonuooou muCoEOE oonu 0C0 mmm.m mHO.N| 0O.o Hm.m O N omm HCHooam o>mn UHHno onu UCo 50> szHOMHm vacuum nOOHuUde mCHudom UHHnU HOO.O _omm.o _mm.o _mm.H _O _H _oom_ mcHHQHomHo HmUHm>nm on mHCmNHmu pus. _ :28 _ om _ ado: _ an: _Caz _ z _ Hanan oHnaHu; .Av.ucoov .0 oHQme 185 .mHm>HMCo uouumu >u0uoEuHuC00 mCHonHou voaaouv EouH.. .mHovoe C0Hum5vo Hmu5u05uum CH monoo now nom5 00C EouH* . oEon onu oUHmu50 Honuooou omo.Ha Oom.o OO.H mO.N H 0mm" mCHnuoEOm 00 CoHUHHn0 va muH50m mmmOOHm uanC um oEHu Nmo.on mom.ou. mm.o eH.m H com oEMm onu um non 0» om CouvHHno mmOOOHm CouvHHno onu nqu oCHmeu you um5n oEHu oEom mmm.e mOe.Nn mm.o ee.m H omm o>mn UHonom50n mHnu CH muH504 mmmOOHm m5 oxmz >onu mo C00m mm OCHCuoe onu mOe.m OOO.N: mw.o Ne.m H omm CH mmCHnu oEom onu 00 CoHUHHnU mmNOOHm*« monuomou >0Ha UHonom50n www.H Omm.Hu oe.o No.m H oom mHnu CH CouUHHno 0C0 muH50< mmHOOHm >H0uCO>CH nOCHu5om >HHth mooHuomHQ HHO.O «HO.N- m~.o mm.m emm.~ omm mcHHmmu UHHCU ocHusuusz HCDZMHCU moUHuomuQ Hmo.o- Nmm.o- NH.O mo.m 5 com ocHummu OHHCU CH aocmumHmcoo zoomHmo pH C0 nm50unu 30HH0u 50> .50H>mnoanE m.UHHn0 u50> omm.o mwm.on mo.o mO.m H omm nqu Hmon ou oUHooU 50> ooCO ouHHmHm«* uwn\eHn on on UHmm o>mn 50> uouwm UCHE “50> moo.ou Nwm.ou mm.o mH.m H 0mm” omCmn0 05 50> uom Cm0 UHHno u50> UUOHmHmm yuan 303m am Can! CH2” z Honda OHAIHHI> .An.ucoov .m oHnme 186 .mHm>HMCm uouomm >u0umEHHuC00 mCHonHom Commonu EouH: .MHovofi C0Hum5vo Hmu5uo5uum CH monom you vom5 u0C EouH.F >HHMH5ooH uonuomou 00 >onu uuomm\>nnon CHmuuou meH.OI moo.H em.o ee.H H omm m o>mn UHonom50n mHnu CH muH50m mheHOHm** nonpomou moooHQ 25.0- :05 3.0 $4 H 8N HmHomCm 9:8 ou mmom >32er mCmHOHmi mo>HuMHou ONO.HI mom.o OO.H OO.N H com nqu muHmH> >HHMH5mou >HHEdm mmmHOHmOO oEOn um uonuomou mmCHnu 00 >onu Con: .oEHu mam.Hu moo.on mo.H me.m H omm >HHEmm. CHmuuoo mmn >HHEmw one mmOHOHm oEon on» o>moH H0 CH oEoo >onu Con: Hem.m mmm.mn mm.o me.m H omm Honuo nomo HHou muonEoE >HHEMh mmMHOHm nonuomou oeH.OI mHm.OI mm.o om.m H omm uoCCHU mumo >HHEMM oHon3 one mmNHOHm mHo.Hu mOo.o ON.H mm.N H omm oEHu uoH5w o mmn >HHEmm mmHHOHm mmCHCo>o onu CH mmm.o: mmm.ou ww.o mN.m H owm oEHu oEMm onu 050nm mumo >HHEmm mmOHOHm mCHCHOE onu CH uonuomou ummmxmoun emw.o mNO.H| No.0 NO.m H owN mumo >HHEou onu mo oEom ummoH uc mumOOHm*« CoHUHHnU onu m0 eom.mm Ohm.O| eO.o om.m H 0mm oumo mCmeu CH mQHon uH5Um numm mmmOOHm oEHuvon um Cow xmm Ho 00 >onu mmm.o mOO.H| em.o mm.m H omm meHnu HMHuomm o>mn CouUHHno mmFOOHm CoHUHHno onu mom.H| MHo.ou no.H mm.m H omm 05 moHuoum HHou no two“ muH50< mmmOOHm uu5x zonm om Coax CH2 2 Honda oHAdHuo> . APuCoov .m oHQme 187 .mHm>HMCm uouumu >uoumsuHuCoo OCH30HHow Commouu CouH«. .mHoUoE C0Humsvo Hmu5u05num CH monon you no»: u0C eouHO Conuo nomo oem.mH mmH.O- NN.O mm.o H o emu 30H: Hsz mcon pom HHHmwu ms mmmomHm >HHEMH H50 CH uHHHQm «mm.H mmm.H- nm.o OH.O H 0 com Csoum mHuuHH Hum> mH mumne mmbomHmm Q5 Hmm.m oom.m- ON.O mm.o H 0 com “mane Comm xomn mHonCme HHHemm whoomHm oEon um oCoc on on man mCHnuofiom HOO.O- mom.H- HO.O HH.O H 0 com awn: HmmucsHo> HHmHmu m: mCmomHmm >HHEow H50 CH mmoCuonuomou mmn.m HHO.H- m~.o mm.o H 0 com Ho OCHHmmH m mH mumne mmOomHm oEon um 00 o3 mmm.m «HO.N- mm.o mm.o H o omm 0mg: oucH Houwcm Ho uoH a nun ms unmomHm oEon um mmo.m OmH.N- Om.o HH.O H 0 com weHu ocHummz on on Comm cmuwo oz mCNomHmm Honuonm oCo oom.HH oew.m- ON.O Om.o H 0 com uuomasm new CHmn mumnCmC HHHCmC mmHomHm Oddom uCOECOHH>CH >HHEdh HOH.o- Omm.o- Hm.m mO.mm mv wH com mempH mwcHusom HHHemC no Cam mmmCOHmu oCOHm mCH>mHQ How >m0 on» HOO.H- HOO.O- ON.H Om.m O H 0mm ocHusv meHu msom mm: uHHco Comm mmmHOHm** nus“ Bonn am C102 812 CH! 2 Honda OHAUHHN> .C0.ucoov .w wHQme 188 .mHm>HMCm nouumu >u0uoEuHuC00 OCHonHou Commouo EouHO¢ .mHouoa COHumsuo Hmu5uu5uun CH moHoum How 0on5 u0C EouH. «COHum5uHm onu nuHs Hmou 0H500 50> mmO.ou oom.o oo.H mm.H H owm 0m moHuH>Hu0m Honuo oUHmm 55m momomHm wCOHHMCHHm onu nqu HmoU 0p mmH.Hu oom.o mo.H mm.m H omm >m3 umon onu u5onm CmHQ m oxmz manomHm mmCHnuoEOm 00 on unOHu mm: oEHu onu HHuCC Omm.H| OON.O OH.H mm.m H owm wHomu50> CHmuumou Co noon UHom msmomHm wCOHum5uHm onu CH mHmom Hmm.m mHm.N Om.o NN.H H com H50> nomoH ou mCH>uu Q5 o>H0 momomHm** mCOHumsuHm mOO.N eme.H Hm.o mO.H H can onu u50nm >CC5H mCHnuoEOm UCHm mDOome mUomCmno on u.Cm0 uH umnu mmm.ou mme.o mo.H em.H H com 0cm voCommmn mHnu umnu uaooon mDmome ‘ w>mz o>HuHmoa ouoE meo.H| OOm.o OH.H mo.m H omm m CH CoHumsuHm onu usonm xCHne mamomHm meHHHo> no HmmH- $0.0 mHH Sim H SN 9:30 3 use mocHHmmH 56» 0.3 E5881 >uouco>CH omoo one mm0.0 eoH.Nn mm.H Oo.m H omm mEouH uCoEConH>Cm >HHEmm w0 65m mznmmHmu HHHCMH H50 CH oC0>Ho>o How CoHuCouum $09 806. mm.o No.0 0 com 98 we? no 353 mH 39? mmmomHm yuan x85 Cm 502 CH2 2 Honda 031.33, .Au_ucoov .w oHQme 189 .mHn>HmCm Houomu >uouoEuHuC00 OCHonHou Oomaouu EouHz .nHoUoE CoHum5vo Hmu5u05uum CH nonon you Uom5 50C EoUH¢ OO0.0 ONO.N mm.o mm.H H omm «CoHum5uHm onu u5onm moxOm oxmz mDmeHm wCOHum5uHm NNN.ou wmm.o em.o mm.H H 0mm on» nqu o>HH 0» numoH ou oUHooQ mwamHm «common 0 mm scum H0 CumoH 0p oonmno Omo.Hu mmm.o NO.H mm.m H own m mo C0Hum5uHm onu u50nm xCHne mDeHon woCooEOm uH5n no mCHnuoEOm >onumo0 ou Om~.mH HHH.O Hm.o mo.H H omm ocHHuu Hp mcoHpoew SQH mmmuaxm momHmHm** wmm5uv OCHm5 0Ho.mm eeO.m mH.o NO.H H 0mm >n Houuon Hoow HHomn50> QHo: mDmHmHm«* NeH.0| Hmm.o mm.o me.H H 0mm onHu wo UOHHoQ o How oC0Hm om MDOHmHm «00 0» non: u50nm mON.HI NO0.0 eo.H mm.N H omm oCooEOmEOHm o0H>Um oEom pow mDMHmHm wuuoma5m oEom pom cu C0Hum5uHm onu mmm.Hn meH.ou no.H oe.m H omN u5onm meHHoom u50> oC0oEOm HHoe mDNHmHm mmmCHnu uonuo mCHOU >n mHm.ou HMO.o HO.H mH.N H owm C0Hum5uHm onu mmo UCHE u50> oxme mDHHOHm meHumuHUoE no mCH>muQ Nmm.Hn mOo.OI NH.H mm.m H omm >n uuowfioo H05HHHHQm xoom MDOHmHm wCOHum5uHm onu CH mEoHnoua omN.H: OHO.o mH.H HN.N H omm onu mo UHH uom on C0Huom oxme mamomHm uusm Bonn am coo: CH2 z Honda oHAdHHo> .Au.ucoov .0 anma .mHm>HMCm Houomu >uoumfiuHuCoo oCHonHom Common“. :8qu .mHoUoE CoHuMCUo Hmu5uo5uun CH monon won 093 u0C Sou? mmm5uv OCmeu Ho Honoon mCHxCHHU >n HOH.me mNO.m eH.o NO.H m H omm mmoH CoHuo5uHm onu p5onm xCHne moommHmOO moCOHm mHnu nuH3 Hmou UH500 50> om oC0>Ho>o NOO.H SmH O0.0 HmH O H own EB 321ng 28H $5.. 000 msmeHm «50> mHon ou OCHnuoEOm wOo.Hn emo.o oo.H NO.N O H own 00 UH500 0n3 oCooEOm on mee \\\MbmmmHm monoofiom EOHM >nummfi>m mmm.on mwm.o Om.o mo.~ O H omm no mCHUCmumuoUCC oEOm poo mDeNmHmOO mCoHuM5uHm onu u5onm powwow 0H500 HHH.o Nem.o mm.o me.H O H com 50> On mmanH nonuo u50nm xCHne mDmNmHm wuozom Hoann m CH um5uu omOH- mHH.o- mHH HO.N O H 8N use» pug no CH2 Pug xmwm CHESS mCOHHMCuHm on» mHo.o nOo.H no.0 we.H O H owm UC50H0 pom ou C0Hu0m uoouHU oxme MDONme moUHHm mmCHnu Honuo emm.H mmm.H ee.o em.H O H owm uoH 0C0 CoHum5uHm onu C0 m500m mommmHm «COHum5uHm onu How >moumuum Hem.on mmm.o HO.H ON.N O H owm m nqu Q5 oEou ou Uumn xCHne mDNNme mnoom oou mCHuom eOm.0| mom.o eo.H OO.N O H owm >n omuoz muouume mCmeE 0H0>CK\\MbHNOHmOO «COHum5uHm onu woo.O ONO.N mm.o om.H O H omN nqu Hmou 0p muQEouum “50> moum moommHmOO uunx 303m am Coo: Nd! CH2 2 Honda OHAIHHI> .An.ucouv .w mHnme 191 .MHm>HMCm uouomu >H0umEuHuCoo mCH30HHow commouv BouH«. .MHoUoE COHuM5vo Hmu5uu5uum CH nonom How Uom5 uOC EouHO HmHHH OOO.OH Ohm.O ON.O OO.O H 0 com HHHemH aqu mHmHHoUCH xuoz mmoo oqwoeHmOO moCo UCHu ou oHnm Coon uOC o>mn UCm mOo.H- HO0.0 mO.o HN.O H o OON 30H a How mconoH comp 20H m>mm UHHOHHmOO OnmuouomHHou HHHn Hg vonmon mCHon oHv mCHumu quouo OOO.O- mm~.H mO.o ON.O H o OON “90> 20H: meoHnouC m>mn so» on 0HmoeHm wnouofi Ho mumo> ozuv oommuuofi om50n m Cmnu uonuo mmN.N OOO.N mm.o OH.O H o own munwu auwuumcoH m>mn so» on oqmoeHm wCOmmou Honuo H0 non 0 m0 om5m0on oEHu on» MHmn Con» ouos HOO.O mo>.H wm.o OH.O H o OON mac: scum Hmzm Cmcuuma use» mH UHOoeHm NO0.0N OOO.m HH.O mo.o H 0 com HHHmH CH Hosanna use» mH UHmOHHmOO wHoCuqu om5omm uoEuow >Cm nqu EoHnoum mHm.O mOm.N Hm.o HH.O H o OON Ho uuom meow ocH>mn so» muO onopHmOO wuonuummom5omm uComouQ on» nqu muoHHwnoo H0 mmH.H omm.H mm.o mH.o H 0 com mucwesmum umHnmmu mcH>mn 50H muO UHHoeHm noocaunasouHo oMHC uHsOHmmHo mow.ou QMO.o em.o eo.N mem.m H owN oaoo Hmuoe onemHmo uu5x zonm om C602 #12 CH2 2 Honda OHAIHHC> .AU.uC00v .o oHnme 192 .mHm>HMCm nouomu >n0nmfinHuCoo mCHonHou Commonu EouH..:.r .mHoUo—u COHuo5Uo Hmn5uo5nnm CH moHMOm now uom5 no: Eon:O wComoon >Cm now nmo> nmmm onn mme.m OHO.m mm.o eo.o o omm CH oouHHmnHmmon Coon 50> o>om UHmHeHmOO w>HHMCoHu06o no .>HHm0Hm>nQ ~>HHo5xom OOO.HNH mmm.HH O0.0 H0.0 0 com son OCHmsnm comnmm nonuo Ham mH oquHHm «50> Uom5nm >HHmnno> no >HHMC0HnoEo moo.e Noo.m mN.o mo.o 0 com no>o noCnnmm nConn5u n50> mom UHCHeHm w50> Uom5nm >HHmon>nQ Nmo.mm owO.m eH.o mo.o 0 com no>o noCnnmm uConn50 n50> mom UHoHeHm wnmo> nmom onu CH oEHno Omm.m Nmm.m om.o OH.O o owm m m0 EHnoH> onn Coon 50> o>mm UHmHeHmOO mmano no Honoon nnHz EoHnonQ m o>mn oHonom50n mNH.mm omm.m mH.o No.0 0 com onn CH omHo oCo>Cm mooo UHOHeHm . «mm5nn no Honoon nnHz oem.mH mmH.O NN.O mo.o o OON CumHnonm m mpmn nmcunma “son mmoo 0HmHeHmOO «mm5n0 no HonOUHm mOO.eNH mmm.HH mo.o Ho.o 0 com nnH3 EoHnonm m o>mn 50> on UHNHeHmO« moHnmUnonnm onm oHnmnH5m mH nmnu o>HH on oomHQ mOo.H- HO0.0 H0.0 ON.O 0 com m mcHucHn ansonu w>mn so» on 0HHHeHmOO wonoHUCMH mmm.> mmo.m HN.O O0.0 0 com nsox :uH: mHnsonn o>mc 50> on UHOHHHmOH HwnHH HHHCmn nan mmN.Mm Hom.m HH.O Ho.o 0 0mm onouonCH xnos m.noCunma onn mooo UHmoeHmOO un5m :onm am Coo: CH2 2 Honda oHndHuo> .Au.ucoov .w oHQme 193 .mHm>HoCm nouumw >n0umEnHuCou mCH30HHou commonu EouH«O .nHoUoE CoHumsvo Hon5n05nnm CH monun nou vom5 u0C fiouHO moonmumE5onHo HNo.O emm.H NO.H mm.o o owm onHH uH50HwnHo Hmuoe eoHoeHmu moEon no mEoHnonQ Hmn0H>onon no HmCOHuoeo m50Hnom aCH>mn moo.mH Oem.O ON.O Oo.o 0 0mm Coon ConUHHno n50> no oCo mm: UHNNeHm wCoHnmuH5mCoo onH5Uon umnn mEoHnonQ Hoonom no wCHCnmoH mCHUCoHnono omm.HH oeo.m ON.O mo.o o omm ConUHHno n50> no oCo mH UHHNeHm moEOn nComonQ O86 mmm.m ON.O 8.0 0 com 30> um 28% m 3933 son m2 382?; un5M Iona om Coo: CH2 z Honda oHndHno> .An.ncoov .w oHQme 194 APPENDIX D Covariance Matrix 195 OOH.- HHo.- mem.- Oom.- Hoo. mmw.n Omo.- Oom.H noHvHHmo mH mHH.: mmo.- OHH.- mOO. Hmo. HON. Omo. OOO. ououmHmo OH mmo. mmo. mmH. OON... moo.n mmH.H mmO. HHH.- mH00mmmo_mH mmH.- HHH.- Hmm.- mHH. OOH.- ONO. mmo.u OOO.N Huoemmmo.mH mHo. NHO.- Nmo. mmm.- mmo. «OH. mmo.u 0mm. >Hnommmo OH OHH. mmo. OOH. HHH.- mmo. OOO. mHo.- OOH.H- cmuummmo mH OmH. moo. 0mm. mmm.- «mm. mmo. «OH. mOm.H- nuoommmo NH ONO. mHo. mmo. mmo.- mmo.u HHo. mHo. OHN.- nnm>~Hmo HH mNH.- Omo.- OOH.- mmm.u HOH.- HON.| mm~.- Hem. manamHmo oH mmo. OOO. oHH. «No. mmo. mmH. Hmo. OOO.- unnamHmo_m «Hm. omo. mOm. mOo.- moo.- omH. NOO. omH.H- coomHmo m 4;..;-- .mmm. ONO. mmH. ooo. ooO. mmm. mbm.- mnnnHHmon. . 1 OOO.N oom. HON. mam.H com. NOO.N- mamanmumw ,H ,.HmH.H~ HOm. OHO.ONH OO0.0H mom. manoOmo m .. 1 ._ mmn.» HmH.H OHH.H OOO.H snuchmo O 4‘-qu - .Omm.mmH. mmm.mO Hom.- mnoxmmmo m .w. 1..-.AmmH.m~ OHO.Hn uumuHmmo N .1 . «...._. a. 1 ..¢ . . _.h -.u ..._ -...:-:.A-;na.p-_.flmmm.om umemo H CoomHoo onanHoo oeoanoo o0H5mmo0 5nnCHmo0 mnoxomoo nomnmmoo nxoOoo .:...g ; m H o H O m N H .monoom oonom no annmz oUCmHnm>ou .e oHQme 196 OOO.N _OON. ONO.- OOO. OHO. OOH.- OOO.- OOO. OOO. OOO.- OH .9: , ‘HONO. NOO.- OOH. ONO.- OOO.- ONH.- OOO.- ONO. HOO. OH my ,OOOO. ONH.- OHH. OON. OOH. OOO. OHO.- OOO. OH ,HOOH.H OOO.- «OO.- OOO.- OOO.- NON. , OOO.- OH .1.¢ ... OOO. OOH. OOO.- HHO. OHO. HNO. OH ... ‘ ._.OOO. OON. OOO. NOO.- OOO. OH xx- .iw OOOO. OOO. OOO.- OOO. NH .eg. .;. OOO. OHO.- OOO. HH . ,. »-OOO. OOO.- OH .a‘: OOOO. O ..._; .MO O O O ”O 1,O ... N ;- gnwww - , .O. r - ..,: . . .w. ..: ._P..;.-_L:,: ..‘.....N ...:O., O 1 ..2. _,.. H noHUOHoo _onoanoo mHoommoo _ Hnofiomoo _>Hn0mmoo Connmmoo _nnoommoo nno>NHo0 _ m>anHoo _nn5CmHo0 OH _ OH OH _ OH _ OH OH _ OH HH _ OH H O .Hn.ncoov .O OHQOO 197 APPENDIX E Summary of Structural Equation Modeling Output 198 Amos by James L. Arbuckle Version 4 Copyright 1994-1999 SmallWaters Corporation 1507 E. 53rd Street - #452 Chicago, IL 60615 USA 773-667-8635 Fax: 773-955-6252 http://www.smallwaters.c0m ***********~k****~k*************************** Title: Summary Amos Output for Models 1 through alternate Model 8 199 mmm.mH OOO.N mQ\ZHZU HmH Nfledmo OO0.0 mNm.o Hmz Hfieqmo mOH.OH Nae.m ooo.o mmm.o OOO.NOON mm0.0Nm ooo.o oom.mNH o mH mMH mm mdmz Hopoe ooCopCoQopCH Hopoa Uonmn5nmm Hopoe nH5mnoo Hopoe ooCopCoaooCH Hopoe ponmn5umm Hopoe nH5mmoQ Hoooe onoN Hoooe o0CoUCoQoUCH Hoooe ponmn5nmm Hopoe nH5mnoQ Hopoa onoN Hopoe ooCopCoQopCH Hopos ponmn5nmm Hopoa nH5mwoo .H Hmnoz unanso OoCO no >nmEE5m .m oHnme am mmm.mH OOO.N bQ\zHZU HmH mmeqmo OO0.0 mmm.o th HnmEE5m .m oHnme mm OOO.NOON mNO.mNO mmN.Nmm mmm.mmm mmOHUm HHO.H OO0.0 mmm.o OOO.NOON Hmh.emO mmm.mmHH me.OmO mmm.HmN OO0.0 mom.mm OOO.NPON oo>.mmm OOH.HmN www.mHN mO>.OmH ooo.o mnm.m OOO.NOON mmO.mmm OOO.NON oom.>om mm0.00N ooo.o oom.Nm onoN ooCoUCoQoUCH Uonmn5nmm HHCOHoQ onoN ooCoUCoQoUCH Uonmn5nmm nH5mmoo ooCoUCoQoUCH nH5mmoQ oonopComoUCH ponmn5nmm nH5mmoo oonoUCoQopCH Uonmn5nmm nH5mmoo 201 Nomm Nfleqmo Homm Hdeqmo OOO O OOO.O OOO O OOO.OH Hmnoe OHON HOO.O OOO.O OOO.O HOO.O Hmnoe OOOOOOOOOOOH OOO.H OOO.O Hmuoa OOOOHOOOO OOO.O NOO.O ONO.O OOO O Hmnoe HHOOHOO HOOO HOOO HOO Ozm HOOoz OOO.OH OOO.O HOH OOO.HOON O Hmuoe OHOO OHO.N OOO.O OOH OOO.OOO OH Hmuoe OUOOOOOOOOOH O OOO.O HOH Hmnoe OOHOHOOOO OOO.H OOO.O OOH OOO.OOH OO Hmnos HHOOHOO mQ\ZHEU m ho ZHZU mnmEE5m .m oHnme OOO.N HH33. OO0.0 "amnnmuoom OHm.H "m50oCMHHo0mHz ON0.0 "COHHONHCHOHZ ">nmEE5m oEHn COHn50oxm mm Hm Honoe onoN ONH OHH Honos ooCopCoQoUCH mmm NON Hopoe nH5mnoo Ho. mo. Hopoz mmeqmom mmeqmom an mmoqom me.H ooo.o NHm.o mmm.mom. ooo.o mmh.om Nmm.HmH ooo.o 5mm.NH mbm.mON ooo.o om>.NO oOCoUCoQoUCH nH5owoo ooCoUCoQoUCH Uonmn5nmm nH5mnoQ oonopcoQoUCH nonmn5nmm nH5mon oUCoUCoQoUCH Uonmn5nmm nHCOHoQ oUCoUCoQopCH ponmn5nmm nH5mmoo XE OOO.HMMN HOO.me hem.HNHH OMO.mmO OOO.HmmN bmh.Hmm omH.mOOH moo.HOm Ho. mmeqmom NHO.m mmO.H omm.H owm.o OOO.Hmmm www.mMO meo.mwm mN0.0mN OHO.N ooo.o omo.N omm.o mo. mmeqmom ooo.m Nmm.H omm.H mmm.o OOO.Hmmm www.mMO OOO.NOm omh.>mm "Hmnoe “annmnoom "m50oCmHHoomHz ”COHHMNHEHCHZ ">nmEE5m Hopoe Hopoe Hoooe oEHn C0Hn50oxm onoN ooCoUCoQoUCH nH5mnoQ onoN ooCoUCoQoUCH Uonmn5nmm nH5mon onoN oUCoUCoQoUCH Uonmn5nmm nH5mwoo flM Nmo.MH NHm.N mQ\ZHZU HhH N.m OOO.H OO0.0 eNm.o Hmm.o Hmw mzm HhH OOO.Hmmm o mmH mew.mmm mH 0 000.0 HOH mNH mmw.mmH mO mo ZHZU mdmz HoUOE ooCoUCoQoUCH Hoooe Uonmn5nmm Hopofi nH5mmoo Hopoe ooCoUCoQoUCH Hoooe Uonmn5nmm Hoooe nH5mmoo Hoooe onoN Hoooe ooCopCoQoUCH Hoooe Uonmn5nmm Hopoe nH5mmoQ Hopofi onoN Hopoe ooCopCoQoUCH Hooofi ponmn5nmm nH5mnoo .O Honoz nsdnso moan m0 >nmEE5m .OH oHnme fifi OOO.Hmmm Heb.eHm Ohm.HNHH mmm.OmO mmOHUm mmH.H ooo.o mHm.o OOO.Hmmm em>.Hmm OMH.mOOH mmm.mOm www.mom 000.0 mme.Hm OOO.Hmmm mmm.mmO meo.mmm omm.mom Nmm.HmH OO0.0 ooe.MH OOO.Hmmm www.mMO OOO.NOm mam.mmm www.mON OO0.0 mmm.MO onoN ooCoUCoQoUCH ponmn5nmm nH5mmoo onoN ooCoUCodoUCH ponmn5nmm nH5mmoo oonoUCoQopCH nH5mnoo ooCoUCoQopCH nonmn5nmm nH5mmoo ooCopCoQoUCH nonmn5nmm nH5mnoo mm th.hH mmm.m mD\ZHZU mOH ooo.mHmH o mOm.m Hopoe onoN OOO.H Hoooe ooCopCoQooCH ooo.o HoUOE Uoumn5nmm Hme.o Hopofi nH5mon mzm Hopoz HoUOE onoN Hopoe ooCopCoQoUCH Hopoa ponmn5nmm Hopoe nH5mmoo Hm Oee.mmm OH 0 000.0 mOH Ob www.mNH Hm mo zHZU mflmz Hopoz .H Hopoz onanoan u5mn50 moan Ho. mmeqmom OOO.m uHmuoe no >nmEE5m .HH OHOOO ooo.o uannmnoom OHm.N "m50oCoHHo0mHz OOO.H "COHnmNHEHCHz ”>nmEE5m mm HoUOE mHH HoUOE Omm HoUOE mo. Hopoz mmeqmom oEHn CoHn50oxm onoN ooCoUCoQoUCH nH5mnoo fl” ooo.o mmm.o mmOAUm oem.o OO0.0 mmm.o mON.mNN OO0.0 OOm.Hm HmH Ndeqmo NOm.bNH ooo.o mom.>m OOO.NOH ooo.o www.mm Hmz HnmEE5m oEHn CoHn50oxm mH Hopoa onoN mHH Hoooe ooCoUCoQoUCH omH Hopofi nH5mon mo. Hopoz mmeHmom OO0.0 Hopoe onoN ONH.H Hovofi oUCoUCoQoUCH HHm.o HoUOE Uonmn5nmm OO0.0 HoUOE nH5owoo H>um Hoooz ooo.mHmH Hopoe onoN OOO.HmN Hopoe oOCoocoQoUCH OO0.0HN HoUOE Uonmn5nmm OOO.HmH Hopoe nH5mmoo UHC Hoooz fl” mmm.mH me.N mQ\ZHZU HhH Nfieqmo OO0.0 Omm.o Hmz Hflegmo 0mm.w emo.m OO0.0 mme.o we OO0.0mmH 0 mm mmO.NmH NH 0 000.0 mm mm mmo.mm mm mo ZHEU mdmz oonoUCodoUCH nonmn5nmm nH5mmoQ ooCoUCoQoUCH nonmn5nmm nH5mmoo onoN ooCoUCoQoUCH Uonmn5nmm nH5mnoQ onoN ooCooCoQoUCH Uonmn5nmm anmnmo .m Hopoz onanoan n5an5o m0€¢ no >nmEE5m .NH oHQme 2m OO0.0mmH mmH.HeN mm>.HHm www.mmm mmOHUm Omo.o 000.0 mem.o i'J'. ' OO0.0mmH moo.mmm mmm.>mm mmm.Hom hem.H>H ooo.o emm.H> OO0.0mmH mNe.>HN OON.OmH hOO.>OH www.mm OO0.0 wfim.hH OO0.0mmH mmO.mHN ooo.omH mmo.OOH mmO.mNH ooo.o mmm.OO onoN ooCoUCoaoUCH 0onmn5nmm nH5mnoQ onoN ooCopCoaooCH 0onmn5nmm nH5mnoQ ooCoUCoQoUCH nH5mon ooCopCoQoUCH nonmn5nmm nH5mqu ooCoUCoQoUCH ponmn5nmm nH5mHoQ 2H th.>H mmm.m mQ\zHEU mOH ooo.MHmH o Hm One.mwN OH 0 000.0 mOH Ob mmH.NMH Hm mo zHZU mmmz onoN oOCoUCoQoUCH nonmn5nmm nH5ouoo onoN ooCopCoQoUCH Uoumn5nmm nH5mmoQ .m Hopoz onanonH¢ u5Qn5O moed mo >nmEE5m OHm.H HHonoe OO0.0 "amnnmnoom omm.H "m50oCmHHoomHz OOH.O uCoHnmuHEHCHz ”>nmEE5m oEHn CoHn50oxm 0H NH mNH mHH CNN mmH Ho. mo. mmeHmom mmeHmom Hopoe Hopoe Hopos .mH oHQme onoN oUCoUCoQoUCH nH5mwoo 2D IJHIIUIuIr-iun a... 000.0 mem.o mmOHUm onw.o OO0.0 Omm.o mON.mNN OO0.0 emm.Om HhH Nfleqmo NOm.bNH OO0.0 ONm.mN OOO.NOH OO0.0 mmH.mm Hmz H.H omm.o mo. mmeHmom ooo.e ONH.H HHw.o ome.o ooo.MHmH Oeh.HmN OO0.0HN mmH.OmH ">nmEE5m Hoooe oEHn C0Hn50oxm onoN ooCopCoQoUCH nH5mnoQ onoN ooCoUCoQoUCH nonon5nmm nH5mnoQ OnoN oocoUCoQoUCH ponon5nmm nH5mon 214 F.‘I‘!Hrlfluuifl. ‘ OmN.OH mmm.~ mQ\ZHZU HmH NnmEE5m .OH oHnme 25 ooo.MHmH ONw.mmm www.mmw mmm.Hmm mmOHUm onw.o OO0.0 NNm.o ooo.mHmH Hum.m>m mhm.omm NHm.Omm mON.mNN ooo.o emm.mm ooo.MHmH mmO.mmN OHm.NNN www.mmH NOm.>NH ooo.o mmm.NN coo.MHmH Ohe.HmN OO0.0HN HNm.mmH Oee.N>H 000.0 Hmm.mO onoN ooCoUCoQoUCH nonmn5nmm nH5mnoo onoN ooCoUCoQoUCH ponmn5nmm nH5mqu ooCoUComopCH nH5mmoQ ooCoUCoQoUCH Uonmn5nmm nH5mmoo ooCoUCoQopCH Uonmn5nmm nH5mon 2w mNm.mH me.N mQ\ZHZU we OO0.0mmH 0 mm mmO.NmH NH 0 000.0 m5 Hm NHm.mm eN mo ZHZU mfimz onoN ooCoUCoQopCH nonmn5nmm nH5mmoQ onoN ooCoUCoQoUCH ponmn5nmm nH5mmoQ .m Hopoz onanonH< n5dn5o mofi< Ho. mmeqmom m0 >nmEE5m OHm.N HHonoe ooo.o "amnnmnoom OOO.N "m50oCmHHo0mHz QNN.o "COHHmNHEHCHz n>nmEE5m OH Hopofi MHH HoUOE OON HoUOE mo. Hopoz mmeqmom .mH oHQme oEHn C0Hn50oxm onoN ooCopCoQoUCH nH5mmoQ 2H 000.0 eOm.0 mmOHUm O00.0 000.0 mwN.0 O50.HOH 000.0 000.00 HmH Nmeqmo www.mm 000.0 000.0H mm0.0NH 000.0 NHm.mm Hmz HfleHmQ o0CoUCoQoUCH nH5mno0 ooCoUCoQoUCH ponmn5nmm nH5mmo0 ooCoUCoQoUCH ponmn5nmm nH5mmo0 ooCoUCoQoUCH Uonmn5umm nH5mmo0 ooCoUCoQoUCH 0onmn5nmm nH5mmo0 2m 000.0mmH 00H.H>N mme.HHm om0.00N 000.0mmH 000.00N mmm.eNm MOm.00m H0. mmeqmom 0mm.m 000.0 N00.0 hm0.0 000.0mmH 0N>.eHN OON.OmH mmH.0OH m0. 00>.H 000.0 000.H 00H.0 mmeamom 000.0 0mm.0 N00.0 mmm.0 000 mmO 000 NHm .OmmH .mHN .mmH .MOH "Hmuoe "amnnmnoom "m50oCmHHoomHz "COHHMNHEHCHZ u>nmEE5m oEHn C0Hn50oxm Hopoe Hopoe Hopoe onoN oUCoUCoQoUCH nH5mmo0 onoN ooCoUCoQoUCH 0on0n5nmm nH5mno0 onoN ooCoUCoQoUCH 0onmn5nmm nH5mno0 2D >0N.0H 000.N ho\zHZU HhH NdeHmQ 000.0 Nmm.0 000.0 000.H 000.0 000.0 0M0.0 N00.0 thm OHe¢Mm 000.0 000.0 000.H HM0.0 MOm.0 Hhm Hmz Homm Héeqmo 000.0 mOm.m 000.0 mOm.H 000.H 000.0 Omm.0 000.0 Hmw mzm 00H 000.MHmH 0 H0 Oeh.m0N OH 0 000.0 m0H me mm0.0NH Nm ho ZHZU mnmEE5m .OH oHnme ZN 000.0 OOmK H00.0 000K HoUOE onoN OOH.H OOO.H OO0.0 ONH.H Hmnoe OOOOOOOOOOOH HOO.O HHO.O HHO.O HHO.O HOOoe OOHOHOHOO ONO.O OO0.0 HH0.0 «HO.O Hence OHOOHOO H>Omz OO HO OO OH H>Om HOOoz OOO.OHOH OO0.0HOH OO0.0HOH OO0.0HOH HOOoC OHOO OOO.OOO HOO.OOO OOO.OOO OOO.HON HmOoe OOOOOOOOOOOH OOO.OOO OOO.OOO OHO.OON OO0.0HN HOOoe OOHOHOHOO OOO.OOO OOO.OOO OOO.OOH OOO.OOH HOOoe HHOOnOO OHOO OHO OOO OHO HOOOz OOO O OOO O OOO.O OOO.O HOOoe OOOOOOOOOOOH 1 OOO.O OOO.O OO0.0 OO0.0 HOOoe HHOOHOO n OOOHOO OO HO OO OH Ommzm HOOoz OOO.O OOO.O OOO.O OHO.H HmOoe OOOOOOOOOOOH OOO.O OOO O OOO.O OOO.O HOOoe OOHOHOHOO OHO.O NOO.O OOH.O OOO.O HOOOs HHOOHOO OO HO OO OH OO szO HOOoz OO0.000 OOO.OOH OOO.OOH HOOoe OOOOOOOOOOOH OO0.0 OO0.0 OO0.0 HOOoe OOHOHOHOO OHO.HO OOH.HN OOO.OO HOOoe OHOOHOO th.>H 000.N hQ\ZHZU m0H 000.mHOH 0 Hopoe onoN Hoooe ooCoUCodopCH Hopoe 0onmn5nmm Hopoe nH5mno0 HonoE onoN HO OOO.OON OH Hmnoe OOOOOOOOOOOH O OOO.O OOH Hmnoa OOHOCOHOO NO NOO.OHH OO HOOoe HHOOHOO OO szo OOOz HOOoz .O Honoz onanoan n5an5o moan mo >nmEE5m .OH oHQme ohm.H HHonoe OO0.0 "Cmnumuoom 0Hm.H "m50oCmHHoomHz 00H.0 uCoHnmNHEHCHz ">nmEE5m oEHn C0Hn50oxm HN 0H ONH MHH ONN NON H0. mo. mmeHmom mmeqmom Hopofi onoN HoUOE oonoUCoQoUCH Hovoa nH5mmo0 zn 000.0 mom.0 mmoqum 000.0 000.0 hom.0 mON.mNN 000.0 50m.me HmH Ndeqmo NO0.0NH 000.0 H00.0H Oee.NhH 000.0 NOm.mO Hmz HdeHwO ooCoUCoaoUCH nH5mnoQ ooCopCoQoUCH nonmn5umm nH5mwo0 oUCoUCoQoUCH ponmn5nmm nH5mmo0 ooCoUCoQoUCH 0oumn5nmm nH5mwo0 ooCoUCoQoUCH nonmn5nmm nH5omo0 ZN 000.mHmH ONm.mmm me.mmw mOH.Omm 000.MHOH Hem.mem mnm.000 OMN.mmm H0. mmeqmoz H0O.m mmm.0 HH0.0 000.0 000.mHOH mmO.mmN 0H0.NNN 00>.O0H 0OH.N "Hmnoe OO0.0 "Omnnmuoom "m50oCmHHo0mH2 "COHHONHEHCHE 0mm.H 0HN.0 m0. mmeHmom 000.0 bNH.H HH0.0 005.0 000.mHOH Obe.HmN 000.0HN NO0.m0H u>nmEE5m Hopoe Hoooe Hopoe oEHn C0Hn50oxm onoN oUCoUCoQoUCH nH5mon onoN ooCopCoQoUCH Uonmn5nmm nH5mwo0 onoN ooCopCoQoUCH 0on0n5nmm nH5mwo0 224 >0N.OH mmm.N mQ\zHEU HmH N¢eHmQ 000.0 Nmm.0 000.0 000.H 000.0 000.0 mm0.0 000.0 Hmzm OHefimm 000.0 000.0 000.H OM0.0 mmm.0 Hem Hmz Homm HfieHmo 000.0 0O0.m 000.0 mOm.H 000.H 000.0 0mm.0 O00.0 Hem mzm m0H 000.MHOH 0 H0 Ohe.mmN OH 0 000.0 m0H HO mm0.0HH Om m0 ZHZU mdmz Honofi ooCopCoQopCH Hovoe nonmn5nmm Hopoe nHCOmoQ Hopoe ooCoUCoQoUCH H0008 ponmn5nmm Hopoe nH5mno0 Honoe onoN Honoa ooCoUCoaoUCH Houoe 0onmn5nmm Hopoe nH5mmo0 Hopoe onoN Hopoe ooCoUCoQoUCH Honoe nonmn5nmm Hopoe nH5mmoo .m Hopoz onmnnonH< n5mn5o mOE< m0 >nmEE5m .mH oHnme 25 000.mHOH ONm.mmm me.mmw mmO.mmm mmOHUm 000.0 000.0 m0m.0 000.MHOH Hem.m>m mem.000 0NN.mmm mON.mNN 000.0 0m0.me 000.MHOH mmO.mmN 0H0.NNN 0H0.00H NO0.>NH 000.0 HN0.0H 000.mHOH Oeh.HON 000.0HN mm0.0mH Oeh.NhH 000.0 mMO.mO onoN ooCoUComoUCH ponmn5nmm nH5mmo0 onoN ooCoUCoaopCH nonmn5nmm nH5mwo0 ooCoUCoQoUCH nH5mno0 ooCoUCoQoUCH Uonmn5nmm nH5mmoQ ooCoUCoQoUCH nonmn5nmm nH5mwo0 2&6 omN.N "Honoe H0. mweHmOI OO0.0 "Omnnmnoom 0m0.N "m50oCmHHo0mHz 0NN.0 HC0HnmNHEHCHz ">nmEE5m oEHn CoHn50oxm m0. mmeqmom Hovoe onoN Hopoe oUCoUCoQopCH Honoe nH5mwo0 ZN REFERENCES 228 REFERENCES Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. J0urnal of Abnormal Psycholong 87, 49- 74. Achenbach, T. M. (1992). Manual for the child behavior checklist / 2-3 and 1992 profile. (Vol. 1). Burlington: University of Vermont. Adamson, L. B., & Bakeman, R. (1985). Affect and attention: Infants observed with mothers and peers. Child Development, 56, 582-593. Ainsworth, M. D. (1973). The development of the infant- mother attachment. In B. Caldwell & H. Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 3, ). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Alexander, J. F. (1973). Defensive and supportive communications in normal and deviant families. J0urnal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 231-233. Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user's guide. U.S.A.: Small Waters Corporation. Baird, S. M., Haas, L., McCormick, K., Carruth, C., & Turner, K. D. (1992). Approaching an objective system for observation and measurement : Infant-parent social interaction code. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12(4), 544-571. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston. Barber, B. K., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different constructs, different effects. J0urnal of Marriage and Family, 58, 433-441. 229 Barkley, R. A., & Cunningham, C. E. (1980). The parent- child interactions of hyperatctive children and their modification by stimulant drugs. In R. M. Knights & D. J. Bakker (Eds.), Treatment of hyperactive and learning disordered children (Pp. 219-236). Baltimore: University Park Press. Barnard, K. E. (1989). Difficult life circumstances. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Barnard, K. E., & Kelly, J. F. (1990). Assessment of parent-child interaction. In S. J. Meisels & J. P. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 278-302). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression. (2 ed.). New York: Plenum Press. Bates, J. E. (1987). Temperament in infancy. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2 ed., ). New York: John Wiley. Bates, J. E., Olson, S. L., Pettit, G. S., & Bayles, K. (1982). Dimensions of individuality in the mother- infant relationship at 6 months of age. Child Development, 53, 446-461. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychopathology.Mbnograph, 4, 1-103. Beebe, B., & Stern, D. (1977). Engagement-disengagement early object experiences. In N. Feeman & S. Grand (Eds.), Communicative structures and psychic structures (pp. 35-55). New York: Plenum Press. Belsky, J. (1984). Determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83-96. Berghout-Austin, A. M., & Knudsen-Lindauer, S. L. (1990). Parent-child conversation of more-liked and less-liked children. The J0urna1 of Genetic Psychology, 151(1), 5-23. 230 Berkowitz, L. (1978). External determinants of impulsive aggression. In W. W. Hartup & J. De Wit (Eds.), Origins of aggression (pp. 147—165). The Hague: Mouton. Berkowitz, L. (1981). The concept of aggression. In P. F. Brain & D. Benton (Eds.), MUltidisciplinary approaches to aggression research (pp. 3-15). Amsterdam: Elsevier/north Holland Biomedical Press. Best, D. L., House, A. S., & Barnard, A. E. (1994). Parent- child interactions in France, Germany, and Italy: The effects of gender and culture. J0urnal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 25(2), 181-193. Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukianinen, A. (1992). D0 girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, lg, 111-127. Block, J., Block, J., & Keyes. (1988). Longitudinally foretelling drug usage in adolescence: Early childhood personality and environmental precusors. Child Development, 59, 336-355. Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resilience in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child ‘psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Block, J. H. (1965). The childrearing practices report (CRPR): A set of q-sort items for the description of ‘parental socialization attitudes and values. Berkley: Institute of Human Development: University of California. Boyce, W. T., Jensen, E. W., James, S. A., & Peacock, J. L. (1983). The family routines inventory: Theoretical origins. Social Science and medicine, 17(4), 193-200. Brazelton, T. B. (1988). Importance of early intervention. In E. Hibbs (Ed.), Children and families: Studies in ‘prevention and intervention (pp. 107-120). Madison, CT: International University Press. 231 Bronfenbrebrenner, U. (1993). The Ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context (pp. 3-44). Hillsdale: Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bronfenbrenner, U. B. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 52, 513-531. Bronfenbrenner, U. B. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, M. A.: Harvard University Press. Burbach, D. J., & Borduin, C. M. (1986). Parent-child relations and the etiology of depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 6, 133-153. Burdett, K., & Jensen, L. C. (1983). The self-concept and aggressive behavior among elementary school children from two socioeconomic areas and two grade levels. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 370-375. Burgess, R. L., & Youngblade, L. M. (1988). Social incompetence and the intergenerational transmission of abusive parental practices. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions in research (pp. 38-60). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temprament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Buss, H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development. New York: Wiley. Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks. Great Britian: Cambridge University Press. Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckermann, H. J., Ferguson, L. L., & Gariepy, J. L. (1989). Growth and aggression: Childhood to adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25(2), 320-330. 232 Campbell, S. B. (1973). Mother-child interaction in reflective, impulsive, and hyperactive children. Developmental Psychology, 8, 341-349. Campbell, S. B. (1990). Behavior problems in preschool children: Clinical and developmental issues. New York: Guilford. Campbell, S. B., Breaux, A. M., Ewing, L. J., Szumowski, E. K., & Pierce, E. W. (1986). Parent-ientified problem preschoolers: Mother-child interaction during play at intake and 1-year follow-up. J.ournal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14(3), 425-440. Campbell, S. B., & Ewing, L. J. (1990). Follow-up of hard- to-manage preschoolers: Adjustment at age 9 and predictors of continuing symptoms. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31(6), 871-889. Campbell, S. B., & Werry, J. S. (1986a). Attention deficit disorder (hyperactivity). In H. C. Quay & J. S. Werry (Eds.), Psychopathological disorders of childhood (3rd ed., ). New York: Wiley. ' Campbell, S. B., & Werry, J. S. (1986b). Attention deficit disorder (hyperactivity). (3 ed.). New York: Wiley. Carbonell, D. M., Reinherz, H. 2., & Giaconia, R. M. (1998). Risk and resilience in late adolescence. Child and Adolescent Social W0rk J0urnal, 15(4), 251-273. Carlson, C. L., Lahey, B. B., & Neeper, R. (1984). Peer assessment of the social behavior of accepted, rejected, and neglected children. J0urnal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12, 189-198. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. S., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. J0urnal of Persibality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283. Caspi, A., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1988). Emergent family patterns: The intergenerational construction of problem behavior and relationships. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: .Mental influences (pp. 218-240). New York: Oxford University Press. 233 ii; Caspi, A., & Silva, P. (1995). Temperamental qualities at age three predict personality traits in young adulthood: Longitudinal evidence from a birth cohortt. Child Development, 66(2), 486-498. Chess, 8., & Thomas, A. (1987). Origins and evolution of behavior disorders. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chess, 8., Thomas, A., & Birch, H. (1959). Characteristics of the individual child's behavior responses to the environment. American J0urnal of Orthopsychiatry, 29, 791-802. Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behaviour. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 779-862). Toronto: Wiley. Conger, J. J., & Miller, W. C. (1966). Personality, social class, and delinquency. New York: Wiley. Coughlin, C., & Vuchinich, S. (1996). Family experience in preadolescence and the development of male delinquency. J0urnal of Marriage and the Family; 58(2), 491—501. Crandell, L. B., Fitzgerald, H. E., & Whipple, E. E. (1997). Dyadic dynchrony in parent-child interactions: A link with maternal representations of attachment relationships. Infant.Mental Health J0urnal, 18(3), 247-264. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, §§, 710-722. Crowell, J. A., & Feldman, S. S. (1989). Assessment of mothers' working models of relationships: Some clinical implications. Infant Mental Health J0urnal, 10, 173-184. 234 Crowell, J. A., O'Connor, E., Wollmers, G., Sprafkin, J., & Rao, U. (1991). Mothers' conceptualizations of parent- child relationships: Relation to mother-child interaction and child behavior problems. Development oand Psychopathology, 3, 431-444. Cunningham, C. E., & Bakley, R. A. (1979). The interactions of normal and hyperactive children with their mothers in free play and structured tasks. Child Development, 50, 217-224. Cunningham, C. B., Reuler, B., Blackwell, J., & Deck, J. (1981). Behavioral and linguistic developments in the interactions of normal and retarded children with their mothers. Child Development, 52, 62-70. Daniels, D., Plomin, R., & Greenhalgh, J. (1984). Correlates of different tempermant in infancy. Child Development, 55(1184-1194). Deater-Deckard, K., Pinkerton, R., & Scarr, S. (1996). Child care quality and children's behavioral adjustment: A four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 37(8), 937-948. Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Kavanagh, K. (1992). An expermental test of the coercion model: Linking measurement theory and intervention. In J. McCord & R. Tremblay (Eds.), The interaction of theory and practice: Exermental studies of intervention (Vol. in press). Guilford, NY. Dowdney, L. (1985). Critical notice: coercive family process by G. R. Patterson. J0urnal of child Psychology & Psychiatry, 26, 829-833. Eddy, J. M., & Fagot, B. I. (1991, April). Prediction of anti-social behavior in 5-year-old boys and girls: Paper presented at the Society of research in Child Development, Seattle, WA. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. (2 ed.). New York: Norton. 235 Erikson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. .Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1-2), 110-135. Eron, L. D. (1982). Parent-child Interaction, television violence and aggression of children. American Psychologist, 27, 197-211. Eron, L. D., Huesmann, L. R., Brice, P., P., F., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). Age trends in the development of aggression, sex typing and television habits. Developmental Psychologist, 19, 71-77. Eron, L. D., Huesmann, L. R., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O. (1972). Does television violance cause aggresion? American Psychologist, 27, 253-263. Eron, L. D., Huesmann, L. R., & Zelli, A. (1991). The role of parental variables in the learning of aggression. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubins (Eds.), The Development of a treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 169-188). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum. Eron, L. D., Walder, L. 0., Huesmann, L. R., & Lefkowitz, M. M. (1974). The convergence of laboratory and field studies of the development of aggression. In J. DeWit & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Determinants and Origins of Aggressive Behavior (pp. 213-246). Hague: Mouton. Fagot, B. I., & Hogan, R. (1985). Aggression in toddlers: Responses to the assertive acts of boys and girls. Sex Roles, 12(3/4), 341-351. Farrington, D. P. (1978). The family backgrounds of aggressive youths. In M. B. Hersov & D. Shaffer (Eds.), Aggressive and antisocial behaviour in childhood and adolescence (pp. 73-94). Oxford: Pergamon. Farrington, D. P. (1979). Environmental stress, delinquent behavior, and conviction. In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 6, ). Washington, D. C.: Hemisphere. 236 Farrington, D. P. (1992). Explaining the beginning, process and ending of antisocial behavior from birth to adulthood. In J. McCord (Ed.), Facts fframeworks and forecasts: Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 3, pp. 253-286). New Brunswick, N. J.: Transactions. Feldman, S. S., Wentzel, K. R., & Gehring, T. M. (1989). A comparison of the views of mothers, fathers, and pre- adolescents about family cohesion and power. J0urna1 of Family Psychology, 3, 39-60. Feshbach, S. (1970). Aggression. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), carmichael's manual or child psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 72-73). New York: Wiley. Field, T. (1982a). Affective displays of high-risk infants during early interactions. In T. Field & A. Fogel (Eds.), Emotion and early interaction (pp. 101-126): Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Field, T. (1982b). Interaction coaching for high-risk infants and their parents. Prevention in HHman Services, 1(4), 5-24. Ford, D. L., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Forster, A. A., Eyberg, S. M., & Burns, G. L. (1990). Assessing the Verbal Behavior of Conduct Problem Children During Mother-Child Interactions: A Preliminary Investigation. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 12(1), 13-22. Fowler, P. C. (1980). Family environment and early behavioral development : A structural analysis of dependencies. Psychological Reports, 47, 611-617. Fraiberg, S. H. (1980). Clinical studies in infant mental health: The first year of life. NY: Basic Books. Freedman, B. J., Rosenthal, L., Donahoe, C. P., Schalndt, D. G., & McFall, R. (1978). A Social-Behavioral Analysis of Skills Deficits in Deliquent and Nondeliquent Adolescent Boys. J0urnal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1448-1462. 237 Garbarino, J. (1976). A preliminary study of some ecological correlates of child abuse: The impact of socioeconomic stress on mothers. Child Development, 238-241. Gardner, F. (1987). Positive interactions between mothers and children with conduct problems: Is there training for harmony as well as fighting? J0urnal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 283-293. Gardner, F. E. M. (1994). The Quality of Joint Activity Between Mothers and Their Children with Behaviour Problems. J. of Child Psychol. Psychiat., 35(5), 935- 948. Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress resistant children: the search for protective factors. In J. Stevenson (Ed.), Recent Research in Developmental Psychology . Oxford: Pergamon Press. Garner, P. W., & Landry, S. H. (1994). Effects of maternal attention-directing strategies on preterm infants' affective expressions during joint toy play. Infant Behavior and Development, 17, 15-22. Gilbert, G. M. (1957). A survey of "referral problems" in metropolitan child guidance centers. J0urnal of Clinical Psychology, 13, 37-42. Giles-Sims, J., Straus, M. A., & Sugarman, D. B. (1995). Child, maternal, and family characteristics associated with spanking. Family Relations, 44, 170-176. Girolametto, L. E. (1988). Improving the social- conversational skills of developmentally delayed children: An intervention study. J0urnal of speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 156-167. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). unraveling juvenile deliquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goldberg, S. (1977). Social competence in infancy..Merrill- Palmer Quarterly, 23, 116-177. Gottlieb, G. (1991). Exoeriential canalization of behavior development: Theory. Developmental Psychology, 27, 4- 13. 238 Greenfield, D. B., Wasserstein, S. B., Gold, 8., & Jorden, B. (1997). The adaptive social behavior inventory(ASBI): Evaluation with high-risk preschoolers. J0urnal of psychoeducational assesment, 15(4), 322-333. Griffin, G. A., & Harlow, H. F. (1966). Effects of three months of total deprivation on social adjustment and learning in the rhesus monkey. Child Development, 37(3), 533-547. Haapasalo, J., & Trembly, R. (1994). Physically Aggressive Boys From Ages 6 to 12 : Family Background, Parenting Behavior, and Prediction of Delinquency. J0urnal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(5), 1044-1052. Haddad, J. D., Barocas, R., & Hollenbeck, A. R. (1991). Family organization and parent attitudes of children with conduct disorder. J0urna1 of Clinical Child Psychology, 20, 152-161. Haft, W. L., & Slade, A. (1989). Affect attunement and maternal attachment: A pilot study. Infant.Menta1 Health J0urnal, 10, 157-172. Hapkiewicz, W. G. (1974). Developmental patterns of aggression. In J. De Wit & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Determinants and origins of aggressive behavior (pp. 201-207). Paris: Mouton. Hartup, W. W. (1974). Aggression in childhood: Developmental perspectives. American Psychology, 29, 36-341. Havighurst, R. J., Bowman, P. H., Liddle, G. P., Mathews, C. V., & Pierce, J. V. (1962). Growing Up in River City. New York: Wiley. Iienry, B., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1996). Temperamental and familial predictors of violent and nonviolent criminal convictions: Age 3 to 18. Developmental Psychology, 32(4), 614-623. Pherbert, M. (1978). Conduct disorders of childhood and adolescence : A behavioral approach to assessment and treatment. Chichester, England: Wiley. 239 Hogan, A. E., Scott, K. G., & Bauer, C. R. (1992). The adaptive social behavior inventory (ASBI): A new assesment of social competence in high-risk three- year-olds. J0urnal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 10, 230-239. Hoving, K. L., Wallace, J. R., & LaForme, G. L. (1979). Aggresion during competition effects of age, sex, and amount and type of provocation. Genetic—Psychology- .M0nographs, 99(2), 251-289. Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O. (1984). Stability of aggression over time and generations. Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 1120- 1134. Isabella, R. A., & Belsky, J. (1991). Interactional synchrony and the origins of infant-mother attachment: a replication study. Child Development, 62, 373-384. Isabella, R. A., Belsky, J., & von Eye, A. (1989). Origins of infant-mother attachment: An examination of interactional synchrony during the infant's first year. Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 12-21. Jansen, R. E., Fitzgerald, H. E., Ham, H. P., & Zucker, R. A. (1995). Pathways into Risk: Temperment and Behavior Problems in Three- to Five-Year-Old Sons of Alcoholics. Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research, 19(2), 501-509. Jensen, E. W., James, S. A., Boyce, T., & Hartnett, S. A. (1983). The family routines inventory: Development and validation. Social Science and Medicine, 17(4), 201-211. Jones, D. C., Rickel, A. U., & Smith, R. L. (1980). Maternal child-rearing practices and social problem solving strategies among preschoolers. Development Psychology, 16, 241-242. Justice, B., & Justice, R. (1976). The abusing family. NY: Human Services Press. Kazdin, A. E. (1987a). Conduct Disorder in Childhood and Adolescence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 240 Kazdin, A. E. (1987b). Treatment of Antisocial Behavior in Children : Current Status and Future Directions. Psychological Bulletin, 102(2), 187-203. Kendall, P. C., & Braswell, L. (1985). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for impulsive children. New York: Guilford Press . Kinard, E. M. (1980). Stage and Sequence : The Cognitive- Developmental Approach to Moral Education. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research . Chicago: Rand-McNally. Kliewer, W., & Kung, E. (1998). Family moderators of the relationship between hassles and behavior problems in inner-city youth. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(3), 278-292. Kliewer, W., Sandler, I. N., & Wolchik, S. A. (1994). Family socialization of threat appraisal and coping: coaching, modeling, and faimily context. In F. Nestmann & K. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Social networks and social support in childhood and adolescence . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Kuczynski, L. (1984). Socialization goals and mother-child interaction: Strategiesfor long-term and short-term compliance. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1061-1073. Kupersmidt, J. B., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Preadolescent Peer Status, Aggression, and School Adjustment as Predictors of Externalizing Problems in Adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1350-1362. Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (1998). Parentintg behaviors and parent-child relationships: Correlates of peer victimization in kindergarten? Developmental Psychology, 34(6), 1450-1458. Landry, S. H., Garner, P. W., Swank, P. R., & Baldwin, C. D. (1996). Effects of matenal scaffolding during joint to play with preterm and full-tem infants..Merrill- Palmer Quarterly, 42(2), 177-199. 241 Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1988). Unraveling families and delinquency : A reanalysis of the Gluecks' data. Criminology, 26, 355-380. Lazarus, R. S. (1998). Fifty years of the research and theory of R.S. Lazarus: An analysis of historical and perennial issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Ledingham, J. E., & Schwartzman, A. E. (1984). A 3-year Follow-Up of Aggressive and Withdrawn Behavior in Childhood : Preliminary Findings. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 12, 157-168. Lee, C., & Bates, J. (1985). Mother-child interaction at age two years and perceived difficult temperament. Child Development, 56, 1314-1325. Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (1986). Contextualism and the Study of Child Effects in Development. In R. L. Rosnow & M. Georgoudi (Eds.), Contextualism and understanding in Behavioral Science : Implications for Research and Theory . New York: Praeger. Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (1987). Children in their contexts: A goodness-of-fit model. In J. B. Lancaster, J. Altman, A. S. Rossi, & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the life span (pp. 377-404). NY: Aldine De Gruyter. Lewis, M., & Goldberg, S. (1969). Perceptual-cognitive development in infancy: A generalized expectancy model as a function of mother-infant interaction. .Merrlll Palmer Quarterly, 15, 81-100. Lindeman, M., Harakka, T., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. (1997). Age and gender differences in adolescents' reactions to conflict situations: aggression, prosociality, and withdrawal. J0urnal-of -Youth -and- Adolescence, 26(3), 339-351. Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review. Child Development, 53, 1431-1446. 242 Loeber, R. (1988). Natural Histories of Conduct Problems, Delinquency, and Associated Substance Abuse : Evidence for Developmental Progressions. In B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in Clinical Child Psychology (pp. 73-124). New York: Plenum. Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1983). Early Predictors of Male Delinquency : A Review. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 68-99. Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371-410. Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998). Development of juvenile aggression and violence: Some common misconceptions and controversies. American Psychologist, 53(2), 242-259. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1983). The "person" characteristics of children and the family as environment. In D. Magnusson & v. Allen (Eds.), HUman Development: An interactional perspective . NY: Academic Press. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: V01. 4, socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1-101). NY: John Wiley. Maccoby, E. E., Snow, M. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1984). Childrens disposition and mother-child interaction and 12 and 18 months: A short-term longitiudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 20, 459-472. MacDonald, K., & Parke, R. D. (1984). Bridging the gap: Parent-child play interaction and peer interaction competence. Child Development, 55, 1265-1277. Mahoney, G., Finger, J., & Powell, A. (1985). The relationship of maternal behavioral style to the development of organically impaired mentally retarded infants. American J0unal of Mental Deficiency, 90, 296-302. 243 Mahoney, G., Fors, S., & Wood, 8. (1990). Maternal directive behavior revisited. American Journal on Mbntal Retardation, 94(4), 398-406. Mallinckrodt, B. (1992). Childhood emotional bonds with partent, development, of adult social competencies, and availabilty of social support. J0urnal of Counseling Psychology, 39(4), 453-461. Mash, E. J., & Johnson, C. (1982). Comparison of the mother-child interactions of younger and older hyperactive and normal children. Child Development, 53, 1371-1381. Mason, C. A., Cauce, A. M., Gonzales, N., Hiraga, Y., & Grove, K. (1994). An ecological model of externalizing behaviors in African American adolescents: N0 family is an island. J0urnal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 639-655. McCollum, J., & Stayton, V. (1985). Infant-parent interactions: Studies and intervention guidelines based on the SAIA model. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 9, 125-135. McCord, J. (1983). A longitudinal study of aggression and antisocial behavior. In K. T. VanDusen & S. A. Modnick (Eds.), Prospective Studies of Crime and Delinquency (pp. 269-275). Boston: Kluiver-Nyhoff. McCord, J. (1990). Long-term perspectives on parental absence. In L. N. Robins & M. Rutter (Eds.), Straight and Devious Pathways from Childhood to Adulthood (pp. 116-134). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. McCubbin, M. A., McCubbin, H. I., & Thompson, A. I. (1987). Family Hardiness. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment inventories for research and (practice (pp. 125-130). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison. McLoyd, V. C. (1989). Socialization and Development in a Changing Economy. American Psychologist, 44, 293-302. 244 Menaghan, E. G., Kowaleski-Jones, L., & Mott, F. L. (1997). The Intergenerational Costs of Parental Social Stressors: Academic and Social Difficulties in Early Adolescence for Children of Young Mothers. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 72-86. Moos, R., & Moos, B. (1981). Family environment scale manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Moos, R. H. (1986). A social climate scale: Family environment scale. (2 ed.). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. Newman, D. L., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1997). Antecedents of adult interpersonal functioning: Effects of individual differences in age 3 temperament. Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 206- 217. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wolfson, A., Mumme, D., & Guskin, K. (1995). Helplessness in children of depressed and nondepressed mothers. Developmental Psychology, 31(3), 377-387. Nuttall, J. R., Stollak, G. E., Fitzgerald, H. E., & Messe, L. (1985). Maternal perceptual style and mother-infant play behavior. Infant-Mbntal-Health-J0urnal, 6(4), 195-023. O'Connor, M. J., Sigman, M., & Brill, N. (1986). Alcohol use in primparous women older than 30 years of age. Relation to infant development. Pediactrics, 78, 444- 450. Oldershaw, L., & Walters, G. C. (1989). A behavioral approach to the classification of different types of physically abusive mothers..Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35(3), 255-279. Olweus, D. (1979). Stability of Aggressive Reaction Patterns in Males : A Review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 852-875. Olweus, D. (1981). Continuity in Aggressive, Withdrawn, Inhibited Behaviour Patterns. Psychiatry and Social Services, 1, 141-159. 245 Papousek, H. (1967). Experimental studies of appetitional behavior in human newborns and infants. In H. W. Stevenson, E. H. Hess, & H. L. Rheingold (Eds.), Early behavior: Comparative and developmental approaches (pp. 249-277). New York: Wiley, J. Parke, R. D., & Tinsley, B. J. (1987). Family interaction in infancy. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2 ed., pp. 579-641). New York: John Wiley. Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer Relations and Later Personal Adjustment : Are Low Accepted Children "At Risk"? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389. Parpal, M., & Maccoby, E. E. (1985). Maternal responsiveness and subsequent child compliance. Child Development, 56, 1326-1334. Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41(4), 432-444. Patterson, G. R., & Bank, L. (1986). Bootstrapping your way in the nomological thicket. Behavioral Assessment, 8, 49-73. Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L. (1991). An Early Starter Model for Predicting Delinquency. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggresion (pp. 139-168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335. Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1989). Family interaction patterns and children's behavior problems from infancy to 4 years. Developmental Psychology, 25, 413-420. Piaget, J. (1969). The Intellectual Development of the Adolescent. In G. Caplan & S. Lebovici (Eds.), Adolescence : Psychosocial perspective . New York: Basic Books. Piaget, J. (Ed.). (1970). Piaget's Theory (3 ed.). (Vol. 1). New York: John Wiley. 246 Pillay, A. L. (1998). Perceptions of family functioning in conduct disordered adolescents. South African J0urnal of Psychology, 28(4), 191-195. Polk, K. (1975). Schools and the delinquency experience. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2, 315-348. Power, T. (1993). Parenting dimensions inventory (PDI): A research manual. Houston: University of Houston. Power, T. G. (1985). Mother and father -infant play: A developmental analysis. Child Development, 56, 1514- 1524. Power, T. G., Kobayashi-Winata, H., & Kelley, M. L. (1991). Childrearing in Japan and the United States: A cluster analytic study. International J0urnal of Behavioral Development, 15, 185-205. Power, T. G., & Parke, R. D. (1982). Play as a context for early learning: Lab and home analyses. In L. M. Loasa & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Families as learning environments for children (pp. 147-178): Plenum Press. Pulkkinen, L. (1983). Finland : The search for alternatives to aggression. In A. P. Goldstein & M. H. Segal (Eds.), Aggression in Global Perspective (pp. 104- 144). New York: Pergamon Press. Putallaz, M. (1987). Maternal behavior and children's sociometric status. Child Development, 58, 324-340. Reynolds, W. M. (1980). Self-esteem and classroom behavior in elementary school children. Psychology in the Schools, 12, 273-277. Rheingold, H., Cook, K., & Kolowitz, V. (1987). Commands activate the behavior and pleasure of 2-year-old children. Developmental Psychology, 23, 146-151. Richman, N., Stevenson, J., & Graham, P. J. (1982). Preschool to school: A behavioral study. London: Academic Press. 247 Rickel, A. U., & Biasatti, L. L. (1982). Modification of the child-rearing practices report. J0urnal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 129-134. Rickel, A. U., Williams, D. L., & Loigman, G. A. (1988). Predictors of maternal child rearing practices: Implications for intervention. Journal of Community Psychology, 16(1), 32-40. Robins, L. N. (1966). Deviant children grow up : A sociological and psychiatric study of sociopathic personality. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins. Robins, L. N., & Hill, S. Y. (1966). Assessing the contribution of family structure, class and peer groups to juvenile delinquency. J0urnal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 57, 325-334. F Roff, J. D. (1992). Childhood aggression, peer status, and social class as predictors of delinquency. Psychological Reports, 70, 31-34. Roff, J. D., & Wirt, R. D. (1984). Childhood aggression and social adjustment as antecedents of delinquency. J0urnal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12, 111-126. Roosa, M. W., Dumka, L., & Tein, J. (1996). Family characteristics as mediators of the influence of problem drinking and multiple risk status on child mental health. American Journal of community psychology, 24(5), 607-624. Rosenbaum, J. L. (1989). Family dysfunction and female delinquency. Crime and Delinquency, 35, 31-44. Rowe, D. C., & Plomin, R. (1977). Temperament in early childhood. J0urnal of personality assessment, 41(2), 150-156. Rutter, M. (1982). Epidemiological-longitudinal approaches to the study of development. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), The Concept of Development . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 248 Rutter, M. (1983). Statistical and personal interactions: facets and perspectives. In D. Magnusson & V. Allen (Eds.), HUman Development: An Interactive Perspective New York: Academic Press. Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American J0urnal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(3), 316-331. Schaffer, H. R., & Crook, C. K. (1979). Maternal control techniques in a directed play situation. Child Development, 50, 989-995. Schneirla, T. C. (1959). Ab evolutionary and developmental theory of biphasic processes underlying approach and withdrawl. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Synopsium on .Motivation, 1959 . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Shantz, D. W., & Pentz, T. (1972). Situational effects on justifiableness of aggression at three age levels. Child Development, 43, 274-281. Shantz, D. W., & Voydanoff, D. A. (1973). Situational efects on retaliatory aggression at three age levels. Child-Develoment, 44(1), 149-153. Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Chyi-In, W. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 159-171. Slater, M. A., & Power, T. G. (1987). Multidimensional assessment of parenting in single-parent families. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family intervention, assesment, and theory (pp. 197-228). Grenwich, CN: JAI Press. Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Ciccheti, D. V. (1984). Vineland adaptive behavior scale: Interview edition, survay form manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, Inc. Spitz, R. A. (1964). The derailment of dialogue. Journal of American Psychoanalytic Association, 12, 752-775. 249 Sroufe, L. A. (1979). The coherence of individual development: Early care, attachment, and subsequent developmental issues. American Psychologist, 34, 834- 841. Stattin, H., & Magnusson, D. (1989). The role of early aggressive behavior in the frequency, seriousness, and types of crime. J0urnal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 710-718. Stattin, H., & Trost, K. (2000). When do preschool conduct problems link to future social adjustment problems and when do they not? In L. R. Bergman, R. B. Cairns, L. G. Nilsson, & L. Nystedt (Eds.), Developmental science and the holistic approach (Pp. 349-375). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stoffelmayr, B., Reuschl, T., Lounsbury, D., & Firlan- Whitset, M. (1998). Detroit skilman parenting program effect on children: Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University. Stoffelmayr, B. E., Reischl, T. M., Mavis, B. E., & Nijjer, S. K. (1993a). Demographic information: Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University. Stoffelmayr, B. E., Reischl, T. M., Mavis, B. E., & Nijjer, S. K. (1993b). Family map: Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University. Straus, M. A. (1983). Ordinary violence, child abuse, and wife beating: What do they have in common? In D. Finkelhor, R. Gelles, G. Hotaling, & M. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of family: Current family violence research (pp. 213-234). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. NY: Doubleday/Anchor. Tannock, R. (1988). Mothers' directiveness in their interactions with their children with and without down syndrome. American J0urnal of.Mental Retardation, 93, 154-165. 250 Thoman, E. B., Becker, P. T., & Freese, M. P. (1978). Individual patterns of mother-infant interaction. In G. P. Sackett (Ed.), Observing behavior volume I theory and application in mental retardation Baltimore: University Park Press. Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Tolan, P. H., Gorman-Smith, D., Huesmann, L. R., & Zelli, A. (1997). Assessment of family relationship characteristics: A measure to explain risk for antisocial behavior and depression among urban youth. Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 212-223. Tomasello, M. (1988). The role of joint attentional processes in early language development. Language Sciences, 10, 69-88. Tomasello, M., & Farrar, J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57, 1454-1463. Tremblay, R. E. (1999). When children's social development fails. In D. P. Keating, C. Hertzman, & e. al (Eds.), Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social, biological, and education dynamics (pp. 55- 71). NY: Guilford Press. Tremblay, R. E., Japel, C., Perusse, D., McDuff, P., Boivin, M., Zoccolillo, M., & Montplaisir, J. (1999). The search for the age of 'onset' of physical aggression: Rousseau and Bandura revisited. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 9, 8-23. Tremblay, R. E., Masse, B., Perron, D., LeBlanc, M., Schwartzman, A. E., & Ledingham, J. E. (1992). Early disruptive behavior, poor school achievement, delinquent behavior, and delinquent personality Longitudinal analysis. J0urna1 of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 64-72. Volling, B. L., & Belsky, J. (1992). The contribution of mother-child and father-child relationships to the quality of sibling interaction: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 62, 1209-1222. 251 Wachs, T. D. (1992). The nature of nuture. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Weist, M. D., Freedman, A. H., Paskewitz, D. A., Proescher, E. J., & Flagherty, L. T. (1995). Urban youth under stress: Empirical identification of protective factors. J0urnal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 705- 721. Wells, L. E., & Rankin, J. H. (1991). Families and delinquency : A meta-analysis of the impact of broken homes. Social Problems, 38, 71-93. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). vulnerable, but not invincible: a longitudinal study of resiliant children and youth. New York: McGraw-Hill. West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1973). Who becomes delinquent? London: Heinemann. Wisdom, C. S. (1989). Child abuse, neglect, and adult behavior : Research design and findings on criminality, violence, and child abuse. American J0urnal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 355-367. Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 252 )IIfill'lllmlflflflfififlfiflwfllflfllvl 8